203

Wilson, Pamela. "Disputable Truths: The American Stranger, Television Documentary and Native American Cultural Politics in the 1950s." Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1996.

PART II: THE CONJUNCTURAL MOMENT: DISCOURSES OF RESPONSE AND REACTION

204

CHAPTER FOUR: CONTESTED TRUTHS

Reality is always a product of the culture and historical period in which it exists. If we change the culture or time frame, fundamental truths also change. (David M. Newman, 1995) 1 On the one hand, truth is produced, induced and extended according to the regime of power. On the other hand, truth lies in between all regimes of truth. . . . Truth and meaning: the two are likely to be equated with one another. Yet, what is put forward as truth is often nothing more than a meaning. And what persists between the meaning of something and its truth is the interval, a break without which meaning would be fixed and truth congealed. That is perhaps why it is so difficult to talk about it, the interval. About the cinema. About. The words will not ring true. Not true, for what is one to do with films which set out to determine truth from falsity while the visibility of this truth lies precisely in the fact that it is false? . . . . Truth has to be made vivid, interesting; it has to be dramatized if it is to convince the audience of the evidence, whose confidence in it allows truth to take shape. (Trinh T. Minh-ha, 1993) 2 Facts are tactical weapons in an ideological struggle. (Charlotte Ryan, 1991) 3

POLITICAL RESPONSES AND INTERCULTURAL CONFLICTS The Politics of Truth Much of the writing of Italian political theorist Antonio Gramsci was devoted to mapping out the terrain of political contestation--in particular, to understanding the various social relations and political relations of force that come together in a concrete sociohistorical moment to create a crisis in hegemony. Historiographical

205 concerns led Gramsci to distinguish between organic movements (which he conceptualized as relatively permanent) and conjunctural movements (which appear as occasional, immediate and almost accidental). He explained this distinction further: A crisis occurs, sometimes lasting for decades. This exceptional duration means that incurable structural contradictions have revealed themselves (reached maturity), and that, despite this, the political forces which are struggling to conserve and defend the existing structure itself are making every effort to cure them, within certain limits, and to overcome them. These incessant and persistent efforts (since no social formation will ever admit that it has been superseded) form the terrain of the conjunctural, and it is upon this terrain that the forces of opposition organise. Gramsci continued: These forces seek to demonstrate that the necessary and sufficient conditions already exist to make possible, and hence imperative, the accomplishment of certain historical tasks. . . . The demonstration in the last analysis only succeeds and is true if it becomes a new reality, if the forces of opposition triumph; in the immediate, it is developed in a series of ideological, religious, philosophical, and juridical polemics, whose concreteness can be estimated by the extent to which they are convincing, and shift the previously existing disposition of social forces. 4 The relevance of these insightful passages to the crisis in cultural and political hegemony that accompanied the painful Native American decolonization process--experienced by both the bureaucratic offices of the U.S. Government and the various tribes--seems obvious, especially as we have examined the decade-long crisis surrounding the ideological and juridical polemics of termination. Around and on the terrain of this organic movement of seemingly incurable structural conditions clustered the oppositional forces that coalesced to challenge the century-old hegemonic structures in their latest imperialist transformations. My entire study is an

206 analysis of those various ideological, religious, philosophical and juridical polemics that intersected in the conjunctural movement surrounding the termination crisis in Native American politics; this chapter is an analysis of the more specific historical moment--the conjunctural moment occasioned, almost accidentally, by the television broadcast of The American Stranger. This chapter is a detailed examination of the various polemics and discourses circulating in the American public sphere that were mobilized in a historically-specific moment to effect political, economic, social and cultural changes--to shift the previously existing disposition of social forces and to make evident new realities and alternate truths. The first section examines the responses that the television program elicited from viewers (especially those that addressed political issues), followed by a section detailing the responses of the U.S. government and its agents to the broadcast and the outcries of its viewers. The third section provides insights into the discourses that circulated within Native America about these issues and about The American Stranger. The discourses that intersected--and were mobilized--in this conjunctural moment expose the various ways that contesting notions of "truth" are constructed, negotiated and fought over by different social and cultural forces. The discursive touchstone of the controversy was the inability of the various parties to agree upon the interpretation of "truth" regarding the historical and current relationship between the United States government and tribal peoples. It was also deeply rooted in different understandings about what the future might hold for Native Americans if and when the official and legal relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes was finally and completely severed, and about what the ethical

207 responsibility of white America should be to their fellow citizens of Native American descent. The contested discourses about definitions of truth revealed by the controversy over The American Stranger were rooted in the different perceptions of cultural reality, different social and economic positioning, different philosophical world views, and different historical experiences of the various parties engaged in the controversy. The primary institutional political players were the Congress, the Department of the Interior and its Bureau of Indian Affairs, the various Native American tribes, and pro-Indian national advocacy and lobbying organizations, with the involvement of a number of other organizations on a lesser basis. At the level of individual social agents, the field became much more complex, involving participants ranging from tribal members, liberal Catholic activists and federal BIA employees--whose involvement in the politics of termination was deep and of a permanent or semi-permanent nature--to those individual citizens and television viewers whose lives became entwined with the termination issue for only a few hours, days or weeks. For each of these players, the truths about the situation, determined through judgment at a personal level, could only be based upon such factors as their accumulated knowledge and understanding of the complex cultural and political situation of Native Americans, their philosophical (religious or political) impulses, their personal experiences and social positioning (perhaps as members of a subcultural social formation), and the position they may have been obligated to adopt as a professional stance because of their occupational position.

208 The discursive sands upon which determinations of truths could be based were also of a shifting nature. During the postwar years and into the early 1950s, the feelings of many Indian and non-Indian people about the prospects of federal withdrawal (later called termination) from Indian affairs had been ambivalent, and understandings about the short- and long-term implications of the move had been ambiguous. Among the Indian population there were various sentiments about what being terminated would mean to each particular tribe, and tribal members were not at all in full agreement about the issue. There were pro-termination factions within many tribes, although most tribes took an official stand against termination. Also, there were many non-reservation people of Indian descent who had no political interest in legally remaining Indian, and some of those who were members of tribes scheduled for termination were apparently eager to get a per-capita share of the tribal assets upon liquidation. Most Indian people on reservations seemed to understandably fear the prospective loss of the structure of their social and economic world that had undergirded them throughout their lives, seeing termination as a denial of their Indianness and its accompanying cultural world rather than as merely a move to (as we would say today) downsize the federal government. Termination threatened the institutions around which many reservation Indians structured their identities--most centrally their land and their tribal community, and to a lesser but significant extent the social agencies that provided education, health care, social welfare, law and order, and other services to those communities. Early in the political negotiations surrounding the withdrawal/termination issue, many politically liberal non-Indians had actively participated in encouraging

209 withdrawal as what they perceived as a move to self-determination. This involvement sometimes came back to haunt them later, when their work toward such a goal became appropriated into the conservative-defined discourses of termination-as-assimilation. 5 To the leading conservatives backing termination, termination meant a combination of eliminating the federal economic burden to legally provide land and services to Indians and the legal liquidation and dispersal of corporate tribal governments, resulting in the freeing up of much Indian land and the eventual assimilation of Indian people into the mainstream population of Americas so-called melting pot. When it became apparent in the early 1950s that this discursive definition of termination would become the legal one, the range of ideological and political positions became narrowed into two primary groups of discourses--those of the pro- and anti- termination camps. Neither camp was by any means unanimous or of a single mind in its position on or perspectives about the ultimate meaning of termination; however, as we know, political struggle frequently requires persons of differing positions to forge alliances in the service of a program in which they do share a strong belief, or against a mutual antagonist. After the passage of HCR 108 when termination became federal policy, and throughout the mid-1950s, those most outspoken in favor of termination consisted of a number of (mostly Republican, mostly Western) Senators and Congressmen, most of the federal officials at the helm of the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, some (though not all) employees of the BIA (including some Indian employees), and many capitalist corporate interests (especially in the Western states) who had stakes in the

210 exploitation of natural resources on federal and Indian lands. Leading the charge against termination were, in addition to most tribes themselves and their only national lobbying group (the National Congress of American Indians), pro-Indian members of Congress, Friends of the Indian advocacy groups such as the Association on American Indian Affairs and the Indian Rights Association, a number of formerly high-ranking employees of the pre-Eisenhower era Interior Department and Bureau of Indian Affairs, a number of academic anthropologists and sociologists who worked with Indian communities, and liberal religious leaders and groups. Also leading the fight against termination regionally were groups like the Montana Farmers Union, which claimed to represent the farmers and working people of the state of Montana. 6 Thus, although the political terrain had become bifurcated into two opposing sides of the issues, the public discourses about the past, present and future courses of the political relationship between Indian people (either as individuals or as tribal units) and the United States government had a broader range of ideological interpretations, many of which were mirrored in the wide-ranging concerns expressed in the responses of the American public to the broadcast of The American Stranger in November of 1958.

Viewer Responses Immediately following the Sunday afternoon broadcast of The American Stranger, telegrams, letters and phone calls began pouring in to the White House, the Interior Department and Bureau of Indian Affairs, NBC and its local affiliates,

211 tribal leaders and members of Congress. The responses from the national public were generally of two sorts: those seeking to provide humanitarian charitable relief, and those engaging in the political process to seek policy changes. The mandate to the BIA, Congress and Eisenhower White House from thousands of television viewers was clear on both counts: Do something. They demanded both immediate relief efforts as well as long-range policy changes. In general, their demands to federal agencies were answered by bureaucratic form letters and mass-distributed statements. Legislators, national interest groups and television executives referred charitable viewers to the appropriate tribal agencies and other channels of influence. Tribal leaders responded appreciatively to the unexpected show of support by the nationwide audience. The first to arrive were the telegrams sent to President Dwight Eisenhower at the White House in the hours following the Sunday afternoon broadcast. We can infer from this that some viewers were so moved by the documentary that they left the comfort of their homes on a Sunday evening to go out to find a Western Union office from which they could send their immediate grievances and concerns to the person they held ultimately accountable for the American Indian situation, the President of the United States. Some were straightforward in expressing their outrage: MR PRESIDENT AFTER VIEWING KALEIDOSCOPE "THE AMERICAN STRANGER" WE ARE SHOCKED AT OUR GOVERNMENTS POLICY TOWARD OUR INDIANS. THIS POLICY SHOULD BE REVISED TO GIVE OUR INDIANS A FAIR CHANCE TO LIVE UNDER OUR GOVERNMENT MOTTO OF LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. OUR INDIANS SHOULD BE PROTECTED INSTEAD OF EXPLOITED UNDER OUR GOVERNMENT.

212 TERMINATION SHOULD NOT BE FORCED ON OUR AMERICAN INDIANS AND RELIEF SHOULD BE GIVEN TO ALL THAT NEED IT. 7 Some viewers were blunt in their assessment of accountability: I HOLD YOU PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY STARVING COLD DYING AMERICAN INDIAN CHILD AND ADULT IF YOU DO NOT URGE AN HONEST INVESTIGATION AS TO THE PROBLEMS THAT EXIST CONCERNING THE INDIANS AND AM DISGUSTED TO LEARN OF THIS SITUATION. 8 Most of those who sent telegrams urged some sort of action be taken: IF INDIAN PLIGHT IS AS DEPICTED ON TV KALEIDOSCOPE, STRONGLY URGE REMEDIAL ACTION AND PROTECTION OF ORIGINAL INTENT OF TREATIES. 9 Some viewers coated their political attitudes in humanitarian terms: APPEAL TO YOU AS HUMANITARIAN TO MITIGATE AND ALLEVIATE THE OPPRESSION OF AMERICAN INDIANS BY INDIAN BUREAU REGARDING TERMINATION OF LAND HOLDINGS AND CIVIL RIGHTS. 10 In a preview of what was to come, many writers expressed shame, disgust and corporate white guilt over the actions of their government, with explicit moral and ethical directives: AFTER VIEWING KALEIDOSCOPE ON NBC REGARDING THE AMERICAN INDIANS WE SHOULD BE ASHAMED TO CALL OURSELVES AMERICANS IF THIS SITUATION IS NOT RECTIFIED. 11 The following morning, the first business day after the broadcast, White House staff secretary A. J. Goodpaster circulated the telegrams to the Secretary of the Interior for appropriate handling, with a memo that read, Telegrams to the P from the following, urging action to alleviate oppression of American Indians re termination of

213 land holdings and civil rights. 12 It is not clear whether Eisenhower ever saw any of the telegrams before they were forwarded to the Department of the Interior. The offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior were reportedly overwhelmed by incoming mail and telephone calls to such a point that they were widely rumored to have hired three extra clerical staff to handle the incoming mail and calls. Viewers targeted the Secretary of the Interior, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and also the regional Area and field Offices of the BIA. Although only a few of these letters still exist, their strength in numbers is attested to in many other documents, and dozens of people who wrote letters to NBC and Congressional leaders said they also wrote to the BIA. 13 Perhaps the following letter is representative of the sentiments of many other citizen/viewers concerned about domestic policy and the administrative practices of the agencies overseeing Indian Affairs: I have just watched the N.B.C. program, Kaleidoscope, as it reported on the American Indian. If we assume that the program was the unbiased reporting of a free American press, and there is no reason to think otherwise, then the conclusions that must be reached by the viewer are inevitable. The average American citizen takes for granted that the government of our country and its various departments and officials approach the problems of our country fairly and with proper motives in mind. It would seem to me to be evident by the report by Robert McCormick that we have been making an incorrect assumption as far as the American Indian is concerned. We take pride in our nation for its fairness, decency, Christian spirit and democracy. If the report on this Sunday afternoon is true then we are in reality the opposite of all of those ideals. . . . It is most tragic that while we are spending millions for foreign aid (which I advocate) that we should at the same time say to those of our nation who are in desperate need for the help which is already in many cases allocated, that no help can be given. Although I can do very little of any

214 significance to change the situation, I can do one thing. I can say, I protest. [italics added] 14 Another example is this letter to the BIA from a New Jersey television viewer: I feel so ashamed of your Department and the U.S. denial of treaty obligations, I could weep. I had heard for a long time that our treatment of the Indians was a disgrace but I didn't know it was downright dishonest. NBC has done a great public service in presenting these facts and I think you will continue to hear from a lot of us non-Indians until we know that there has been a change in Bureau policy. I can only assume that you people are working, not for the U.S. and hence defending its moral obligations, but are working for the private timber and oil interests. 15 A New York viewer wrote directly to the Secretary of the Interior, Fred Seaton: I respectfully urge you to investigate your Dept. on Indian Affairs as to our part in honoring the signed agreements and treaties which we have with the Indians. In a recent T.V. coverage of several Reservations, the most shocking injustices towards the Indians were revealed--I am sure to the amazement of the whole nation. I feel very strongly that we had better change our policy towards the Indians at once and adopt a fair and protective attitude in accordance with our moral obligations. May I urge you therefore to see to it that favourable changes of policy be put into effect, without undue delay. 16 The federal agencies delayed in responding to the telegrams and letters until they could prepare a unified statement reflecting the official position of the Department of the Interior on these question. As the Congressman from Montana who was interviewed on film in the documentary, and who thereby established himself as one of the nations leading anti-termination spokespersons, Lee Metcalf received thousands of pieces of mail, not only from his own constitutuents but from citizen/viewers across the nation. Many of them wondered who they could write, and what they could do, to effect changes. For example, one writer asked:

215 What legislation can we support that is wise? To who [sic] can we go for accurate, unbiased information? What committees and Congressmen are concerned with Indian problems? We hope you can give us some help. We certainly commend your activity on their behalf. They certainly need intelligent and vigorous support. 17 Another writer suggested an understanding of the power of numbers in political letter-writing campaigns: What in the world can I, as a fifth grade schoolteacher, and as a thinking person, do to help bring things to a focal point? Will letters bring pressure--if so, I can start an avalanche! 18 Metcalf encouraged such letter-writing campaigns by concerned citizens. In a reply to the above question, one of his staff members responded: Thank you for your kind letter in regard to The American Stranger in which Mr. Metcalf took part. . . . As the flood of letters from concerned persons all over the United States was not foreseen by this office we do not have a supply of printed material for distribution at this time. However, it has been the experience of this office that letters to a congressional delegation or the government departments are received with more than a little interest and concern. 19 Similarly, some letters expressed an understanding that the cumulative effect of letters of outrage from concerned citizens might constitute a noticeable social action movement: From the newspapers and magazine articles I've read I have known that the Indians were in a bad way, but primarily, I thought it was just the Blackfeet and did not give it much thought until I saw Robert McCormick's TV expos yesterday. It seems to me that the Bureau of Indian Affairs and particularly [BIA Commissioner] Glenn Emmons . . . needs reviewing and investigating. I was shocked to realize we are treating our treaties with the Indians like the Commies treat their treaties. I am a lone voter but if enough like me write our Congressmen and Senators maybe they will do something to alleviate the plight of our friends who now depend on us since we have taken what is rightfully theirs. What would you suggest? 20

216 A New York family wrote to NBCs Robert McCormick, admonishing him for raising such a heated issue about an injustice or a condition that needs righting without telling the viewers what they could do about it: What can we do? To whom can we write? What organizations are doing anything about this? We are a family of letter-writers. We often try to get other people to write, too. And sometimes succeed. We believe that something can always be done about anything, even at great distance. They suggested that the show, born of conviction, and representing much work and thought, should be repeated annually, with additional introductory remarks pointing a finger at the American people (which would be uncomfortable but a much-needed lesson). 21 Other letters received by Metcalf expressed the range of emotions felt by viewers upon watching the broadcast of The American Stranger, and the motivations which spurred them to take political action. Many identified with Metcalfs liberal and pragmatic position: NBCs broadcast (Kaleidoscope) on the plight of the American Indian was deeply moving and I want to congratulate you for your work on their behalf. . . .Even if you are Indian yourself, my praise is equally high, because you arent working selfishly. I may never be able to cast a vote for you, but if there is anything at all that I can do to help I wish you would let me know. Dip my pen in acid and write to Seaton? Or the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs? Im a Quaker and am most happy because the American Friends Service Committee devotes some of its time and money to helping the Indian. However, no private individual or organization can make up for what our government seems determined to do. 22 I saw the NBC TV program about the Indian people and I was shocked to learn that our government continues to abuse these people. I also noted from the program that you appear to be one of the leaders in the efforts to correct these abuses. If you will write me when legislation to help the Indians is pending, I shall be happy to write my Congressman

217 and ask him to support the legislation, and I will ask my friends to do the same. Please accept my thanks for what you have done and will do to help these American Indians. 23 Other citizen/viewers took a more passive stance, expressing agreement and interest though apparently not interested in taking social or political action: A few minutes ago I finished watching a TV program concerning the problems of the American Indian and especially those in Montana--the Flathead and Blackfeet in particular--Robert McCormick (news reporter) presented the program and did a fine job. I was pleased to see you appear and give the reporter some vital information relative to the problem. Needless to say, it surely opened my eyes and confirmed my opinions concerning the treatment the Indians are getting by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The lack of help (financial--especially now during the cold winter, the polio epidemic this last August in Browning, and the matter of social welfare) makes me madder than all get out at the Federal Government for its apathy. The same viewer continued: May I also state that I certainly do not agree with the forced termination of land policy as its being practiced by the Bureau. Anything you can do to clean up this mess and see the Indians get fair treatment will surely be appreciated by me; for, Id certainly rather have the entire populace of the USA pay taxes for the support and welfare of the Indians than to see the States become burdened with taking care of them after theyve been forced to sell their land. By the way, how does the President feel about this matter? Then, too, what about the Sec. Of the Interior? What are his feelings? Please let me hear your views concerning this matter and I shall be watching, listening, and checking to see just what you do to alleviate the situation and to help the Indians help themselves. 24 Some citizen/viewers writing to Metcalf sought information as a prelude to taking action: The television program, Kaleidoscope, in which you took part, had a wide and immediate response. I am interested in the problem of the American Indian and would appreciate any information you could send on the entire problem, and especially on the actions of Congress. To what extent is the action of Congress the result of pressure by interested business firms? Which Congressmen besides yourself are working on behalf of the Indians and which work more or less to their detriment? What is being done about the problem especially on the

218 college campuses of the nation, and what can I do on my own campus? 25 Another writer from outside of Metcalfs constituency chided Metcalf for not doing enough for the Indians in his state: I have taken it upon myself to write to the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington, D.C. and also to secure the name of the Montana representatives of that group to get some answers on these conditions thousands of us witnessed that Sunday. And this at the hands of the U.S. Govt. and in this "land of plenty." You and your fellow Congressman, Mr. Anderson, have a little job to take care of, it seems, in investigating also the securing of their lands by bid after being declared unfit for certain crops by senseless restrictions imposed upon it. I am not a resident of your state, but a reasonable, intelligent citizen of this country that would like some answers on the Flathead Indian situation in Montana. As the situation stands, one could easily be ashamed of their treatment from the hands of the government. 26 In addition, innumerable viewers wrote to their own legislators addressing the issues raised by the documentary. Since the issues were ones that had previously been considered politically pertinent only to those Congressional leaders representing areas with American Indian populations and reservations, many legislators were apparently at a loss about how to respond to their constituents concerns, and subsequently consulted their colleagues with greater expertise--or passed the buck to the next highest level. For example, one California Congressman wrote to President Eisenhower himself:

219 I have received a card from my constituent Mr. Stephen Gibbens. . . [which] reads as follows: "I have just seen an NBC TV show on the American Indians and their troubles with the Bureau Of Indian Affairs. In all my life I've never heard a good word for this Bureau. Couldn't this Bureau be transferred to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare where it might get more human and Christian leadership than it apparently receives from Interior." Inasmuch as the Bureau of Indian Affairs is in the Administrative Branch of the Government and is therefore under your direct jurisdiction and supervision, I feel it advisable to forward the above suggestion to you for your consideration. I should appreciate receiving a reply which I might forward to Mr. Gibbens. 27 Similarly, Metcalf received a letter from Freshman Congressman John V. Lindsay of New York: I am enclosing a letter which I received from a constituent of mine which is interesting, since it shows the concern of a person in a heavy, urban residential district for the plight of the American Indian. Do you have some material you could send me on this score? Having been newly elected to Congress from New Yorks 17th District (Manhattan) I should begin familiarizing myself with this whole subject. 28 The enclosed letter to Lindsay revealed that this was the first time the New York City resident had ever taken action by writing to a politician: As one of your constituents, may I take the liberty of inquiring whether you have recently seen the Movie on TV called Kaleidoscope. The program I refer to shows the miserable plight of the American Indian, who now seems about to be deprived of his remaining lands under the direct aegis of the Indian Bureau set up for his protection. Congressman Metcalfe [sic] of Montana can provide further details concerning this national disgrace.This, sir, is my first letter to any member of either house, and I hope I will have some effect. 29 Other concerned citizens who had seen the NBC documentary wrote to Senators Henry Jackson and Warren Magnuson: I was inspired to write you because of a documentary television program called Kaleidoscope. . . .The Indian in today's America seems to be in trouble because unfortunate circumstances arising out of certain malicious traits on the part of some white people--against which

220 assault the American Indian seems powerless to defend himself. This television program, created by Robert McCormick, went into such things as "termination", inability to get credit for loans, little or no voice in his destiny, broken treaties on the part of our government, as well as malnutrition and general hardship. In addition, he is being tricked out of his lands, according to Mr. McCormick. The letter continued: The Bureau of Indian Affairs was often mentioned. This department, I believe, is under the aegis of the Department of the Interior, and which seems to be a punitive governing body working against the Indian rather than helping or protecting him. I was also led to believe that there have been certain powerful laws passed which react militantly against the Indians' economic survival. This writer expressed his outrage to the Senators: I think the thing that really repulsed me was the restraint on the part of the government to permit the above abuses toward the American native, not as yet wise to the ways of some commerce and some business. (Heaven knows that we white people living in today's world have enough trouble from the same encroachments of discriminatory laws and discriminatory business practices.) I appreciate the fact, Mr. Senator, that your primary interests are not in these fields because I know of your good deeds in national work but I would like to ask you about this: To what department, or person, may I appeal to express my feelings on the foregoing subject[?] I would like to do what I can to help this unfortunate group of the American people. 30 Many other viewers who wrote to NBC or to Metcalf said that they either had already written, or planned to write, to their legislators or to the federal agencies: I wish to congratulate you and thank you most sincerely for the excellent program on Kaleidoscope--The American Stranger. It WAS a very enlightening and thought provoking program. As a matter of fact, I have just written our senator in Washington calling his attention to this matter and commending your excellent presentation. Please continue bringing such things as this to light and know you are indeed performing a public service of the first order. [italics added] 31 We were very impressed with your picture about the American Indian. This is a dreadful scandal most people know nothing about, and I hope your work will help. I have already written my Senator and will write the

221 other Senator and the Dept of Interior soon, asking that something be done. [italics added] 32 Metcalf received many letters like this one: For years I have been enraged by the dishonorable treatment given our first citizens, the Indians, by our government. The TV program Kaleidoscope told me more things which I did not know. Within the hour after presentation I wrote to Sen . C. Case from New Jersey telling him how I felt and to please vote against the termination of the Indian leases. Where in addition may I also write to do what I can to help protect these wonderful people against fraud and swindle? [italics added] 33 NBC claimed the largest audience response to any news show within memory, as did the Great Falls (Montana) television station KFBB-TV. 34 Letters to McCormick also asked advice about who to write and what to do to effect political changes: Thank you very much for your wonderful expos, The American Stranger. It was very effective--it has "made my blood boil" to the extent that I feel that it is my duty to do what ever I can "to fight city hall." There is much more to be said and very much more to be done --will you please advise me who I can contact in order to actively participate in this struggle. It looks to me as if we could very well use a "National Association for the Advancement of the American Indian." It is my opinion that thorough investigation would uncover acts bordering on the unlawful in attempts to deprive the American Indian of what is his own. Please do not fail me as I am truly concerned over this situation. 35 Congratulations on an excellent program. A rather rude awakening for us--I hope others were as shocked as our family was--we've written to our State Senators and to our Senators in Washington urging them to look into the policies of the Indian Bureau etc- etc- etc-. Such programs make TV worth watching. 36 I watched The American Stranger today on Kaleidoscope and I think you did a wonderful job showing the problems of the American Indian. Your show was only an eye opener . . . but will most TV viewers forget about it, or is there something that can be done? . . . Can you advise who we should write to see that the government . . or whoever is

222 responsible . . . for the condition of the American Indian do something to better their condition? All they ask is "Spare me a little". . . surely a human American government . . . owes anyone that! I sincerely hope that you keep this condition in the public eye . . . so that the public . . . can lead those now calling all the plays. Congratulations to you! P.S. Please advise who to write to. 37 Many of the letters tapped into existing colonialist discourses of paternalism towards the Indian people, manifested in both political and altruistic terms, such as this one: My delayed but sincere compliments to you on your review of Indian Affairs. It was well programmed and well documented; and was indeed a sad commentary on the way Americans take care of their own. I shall write to my congressmen at once, requesting review, clarification and enforcement of Indian protective laws, as well as help for the unfortunate. [italics added] 38 Expressing similar sentiments, some viewers wrote to legislators with suggestions for steps that mught be taken to remedy the problems. For example, in this letter to Metcalf, the viewer suggests some assimilationist strategies: While the poverty of the Navajo Indians is well known, the plight of Montana Indians was made public on the Kaleidoscope program (KRCA) November 16. If the government needs revenue from Indian lands, could reservations be abolished so that Indians could become independent farmers, cattle breeders, lumbermen, etc.? who would pay taxes like other land holders? This viewer continued: The Indians interviewed seemed intelligent and educated, equipped to earn good livings either on the land or in industry. There might be legal and treaty barriers to abolishing reservations, and perhaps the Indians want to retain them. Other solutions might be more feasible, but hunger is a terrible thing especially disgraceful in this land of plenty. Some American surplus food is being shipped overseas. Could some of it be delegated to the Indians this winter? Transportation costs should not be prohibitive. 39 Others, as we shall see in a later section, expressed strong opinions about their perceptions of American Indian communities as being like domestic Third World

223 countries deserving of the same types of aid as the foreign aid the government was sending overseas. This letter, for example, which incorporates Christian rhetoric into a call for political action, also expresses a desire to help the Indian help himself : I have just finished watching your very informative story of the American Indians on T.V. I am sure there must be a deep investigation within many Americans across the nation upon seeing your program. We must do something and not just think about it! I for one intend to ask my friends to write to the Bureau of Indian Affairs suggesting they begin now to alleviate the problems of the Indian. To help the Indian help himself educationally otherwise should be a grave concern of the Bureau. Our magnificent gestures of aid and good will to other nations bespeaks a nation lacking in genuine Christian practices, when we look upon the widespread neglect and abuse of our own "Americans." You are to be congratulated for your forthright and enlightening program. 40 Overall, the letters written by citizen/viewers in response to The American Stranger were overwhelmingly supportive of both the program and of any progressive efforts to overhaul the colonial system and, in some vague and idealistic way, give the Indian what he is due from the federal government. However, defining the contemporary parameters of the Indian problem--and, especially, determining how a resolution to this problem might be constructed, and by whom--became the source of a great deal of political, intercultural and ideological debate.

An Irate Government Several weeks after the broadcast, the full controversy erupted. Top officials of the Department of the Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs had met to prepare a unified response to the momentous public outcry and to defend the federal agencies operations in light of the television attack. Acting Secretary of the Interior Elmer

224 Bennett penned the following letter to NBC President Robert Kintner, registering the Interior Departments displeasure with their representation on the small screen: Thank you for your telephone call concerning the November 16 Kaleidoscope network show. As I understand your position, you believe the objectives of the Indian policy of the Department of the Interior were fairly treated on that program, that the assertions of the narrator were "documented," and that we have no justifiable complaint. Please permit me to review, briefly, some of the reasons why we believe NBC committed a serious disservice to the American Indian people, and your television audience, as well as to this department. First, Bennett accused McCormick of associating with, and being unduly influenced by, the perspectives of the vocal, dissident groups (like the NCAI, AAIA and IRA) that lobbied nationally for Indian policy reform: It may be that the narrator was "sold a bill of goods." For that reason, we do not wish to be thought hypercritical of his efforts. The very reaction to this program demonstrates that he is effective. However, we do question his approach to this problem. The entire tone of the program followed a pattern often espoused by a vocal, dissident element that asserts we are ogres without souls and avowed enemies of Indians. About half, and possibly more, of the Indian Bureau employees are Indians. I can only imagine how they must feel after hearing this unfounded accusation. Next, the Acting Interior Secretary argued that the basic claims of the broadcast were wholly untrue, and accused McCormick of partisanship in his presentation of what the federal agency of this Republican Administration felt to be a Democratic party perspective on Indian Affairs. This included a lengthy personal defense of the credentials of the controversial Commissioner Emmons: Mr. McCormick brought a Democratic Congressman on-screen by describing him as "a student of Indian Affairs." In contrast, Glenn L. Emmons, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for almost six years (as long as Mr. Metcalf has been in Congress) and a Republican, was dismissed curtly as "the former banker at Gallup, New Mexico." This reference to Mr. Emmons was accompanied by the sneering

225 implication that he was content to sit in Washington spouting philosophical dissertations. Mr. Emmons has lived among and worked closely with the Indian people for more than 30 years. He is beloved by the Navajo Indians, who, we understand, are willing to assist the Department in any way to rectify the damage done to the progress of our positive Indian program by the Kaleidoscope television presentation. On a related note, Bennett took offense at McCormicks evaluation of the possible political motives behind Secretary Seatons recent speech which had softened the termination rhetoric (a belief that was widely shared in the liberal Friends of the Indian circles): At the end of the program, Mr. McCormick volunteered the suggestion that Secretary Seaton might be playing politics with the fate of the Indians so that Senator Goldwater could be re-elected. . . .This flies in the face of Mr. Seaton's repeated insistence that the plight of the Indians has no place in politics. Anyone who knows Secretary Seaton would deny the narrator's assertion. And if Mr. McCormick had bothered to check with the Secretary, or his office, he would have discovered that the Secretary stated a principle he has followed since his appointment in 1956. Bennett confirmed that the Interior Department and Bureau of Indian Affairs offices had been deluged by letters and calls from angry and concerned viewers, and characterized their perspectives: We have received a number of telegrams, letters, and post-cards from viewers who were shocked at the appalling picture painted by Kaleidoscope. The same themes recur through their pleas--"I am heartsick" or "I am physically ill from thinking about it" or "I am ashamed to call myself an American after seeing what we are doing to the Indians." Many of them lay the blame directly upon President Eisenhower, the present Secretary of the Interior, and even the Republican Party. These people who have written to us have the clear impression that under this Administration the American Indian faces a heartless plot designed to eradicate him. That impression is dead wrong, we submit.

226 Providing an introduction for the longer rebuttal statement that was also included, Bennetts letter began the counter-argument to the charges made in The American Stranger by emphasizing the positive, constructive work done by the government on Indians behalf: We have a very constructive program in Indian Affairs. As the enclosure points out, this Administration is devoting twice the amount of Federal funds for Indian assistance as was the case in 1952. More Indian children are in school now than ever before. And, we have dedicated ourselves to the elimination of discrimination against Indians--in schools and elsewhere. We do not look upon American Indians as museum pieces or second-class citizens, but as full-fledged Americans who deserve the utmost in patience and understanding. After years of absolute paternalism and being shut off from progress, we are trying to help the Indian find his rightful place in his own society as well as ours. In order to avoid sounding too successful, the Acting Secretary acknowledged that much remains to be done, yet self-righteously caricatured the criticism of the Departments administration of Indian Affairs in a sarcastic and overblown tone: We would never undertake to argue that there are no Indian needs, nor that theirs is the best of all possible worlds. And, of course, I do not assert that we have a magic solution for every single problem in connection with the administration of Indian affairs. We all know much remains to be done. But the telecast's innuendo and half-truth managed to convey that we are doing nothing constructive and instead are following policies designed to (1) wrest the Indian from his land so that non-Indian plunder barons may buy it for a song; (2) violate and break treaty obligation; and (3) reduce the Indian to poverty, degradation and even death. "I might add," Bennett continued, "that if Mr. McCormick has evidence of any action providing even a scintilla of proof of the granting of a special privilege to a plunder baron, we would appreciate having it. Immediate steps would be taken to rectify such action."

227 Returning to Seatons recent speech, Bennett prepared an introduction to his agencys point-by-point rebuttal of the television documentary, highlighting the main arguments that would follow in more detail in the lengthy Statement. Secretary Seaton's September 18 radio broadcast summed up his policy on ending the trustee relationship of the Federal Government to Indian tribes. I have re-read it repeatedly and I cannot conceive how anyone could misconstrue it. It is as direct and foursquare as anything I can imagine. A copy is enclosed and I think your will agree with me. Also enclosed is a point-by-point reply to the telecast's charges. I would like to touch on some of them here. He began with the Menominee issue, using reductionist arguments (rather than acknowledging the complex cultural and political issues at stake) to accuse McCormick of distorting the truth: A typical example of the program's inability to reconcile utterance with fact is the way the Menominee Forest issue was handled. The narrator said the Menominees' "only capital asset" was "the tax-free status of their forest." The Menominee assets, to the contrary, were the $35,000,000 forest itself and the tribal lumber mill. Mr. McCormick said the tax-free status "was guaranteed by the most solemn promise the Government can give, a treaty." Congress held hearings on that allegation and the tribe's own attorney admitted no such treaty guarantee existed. Mr. McCormick left the inference in the minds of his onlookers that we plotted to remove the forest from Indian control and hand it over to white men. Never at any time was anything of this sort contemplated. To be succinct, Mr. McCormick was wrong three times. Using paternalistic and infantilizing discourses, Bennett continued by clarifying the federal position on Indian land sales. "On land sales, our record on tribally-owned land is not even open to question. Tribal lands can be sold only under specific Congressional authorization. Individual Indians can sell their individual land holdings just as you or any other American citizen." Bennett continued: But even in individual sales, our policy leans over backward to give the tribes the first opportunity to buy the land. The sale formula is so

228 arranged that the tribe has, repeatedly throughout the land sale procedure, a preferential right to obtain the land. The policy goes to the legal limit in protecting the Tribe. If it went any further, the individual might well have a valid accusation to level against us, charging us with failing our trustee duties to him. As it is, the individual Indian must obtain our consent to the sale. This a safeguard to protect gullible, unsophisticated Indians from the unscrupulous. The Interior Department official acknowledged the shameful mistakes made in the past, but disavowed any patterned connection between the nations past and present actions: From time to time various individuals have charged that we are guilty of abrogating or at least violating Indian treaties. The accusations are seldom specific. Of course, we all know, and the Courts have held that Indian treaties have, in the past, been broken by this country. Our Nation during the 19th Century had a shameful record of dealing with Indians. The settling of the West, and the East, for that matter, witnessed some monstrous crimes. But, Kaleidoscope ran the centuries together and hewed to the tradition of loose charges. As far as I can determine, this Administration has not knowingly violated any Indian treaties. I can assure you that it is our intention to continue to honor both the letter and the spirit of all treaty provisions now in effect. The letter from the Interior Departments paternalistic Acting Secretary also provided the governments bio-ecological rationale for dispossessing Indians from their land and for the BIAs big Relocation effort. Claiming that since there were just too many Indians and not enough land and resources to sustain them, the

229 government felt that it had a responsibility to take care of its wards by moving them to cities and offering them training in new vocational skills: You doubtless know that the Indians have a kinship with the land which borders on religion, and in instances their land has religious significance for them. The facts of economics are hard, however, and the facts are that there is a limit to the number of people a specific acreage can support. In nearly every instance, reservation populations have outgrown their reservation resource bases. He continued: There are more Indians in our Nation today than at the turn of this Century. Moreover, many Indians have no desire to farm or operate livestock projects. They can no longer support themselves by living as their forefathers did. They need skills and jobs. To meet these needs, we are furnishing vocational training to improve their skills and increase their earning capacity; attempting to attract new industries to reservation areas and assisting those Indians to find housing and employment who want to create homes for their families away from reservations and in a higher standard of living for themselves and their descendants. Why, Bennett asked Kintner, did Kaleidoscope fail to so much as acknowledge the existence of these programs? Bennett also included a reference to the Blackfeet situation with the same overstatement the Interior Department had used earlier, and would continue to use, in characterizing the discourses that found fault with its programs: The case of the Blackfeet and their request for relief money is another item in point. We stand ready to prevent hardship and suffering on the Blackfeet reservation. Yet our simple suggestion that the Tribe furnish an audit--including a report on the disposition of very substantial oil revenues--in justification of its request was brushed off by Kaleidoscope as "gobbledegook." Bennet continued: It seems elementary that any applicant for public funds should give an explanation of his need for them. Certainly the Congress of the United

230 States insists on it, so do state, county and local governments, and I am sure you in your own industry require your department heads to explain why they need operating money. The tribe has acknowledged the need for a financial report. Yet the telecast left the idea that a callous bureaucracy, so snarled in its own red tape that it couldn't recognize human suffering, had dismissed starving, freezing Indians with a brutal admonition to go home and do their arithmetic. Finally, the letter attacked the television report for its failure to present the governments position: This program was not responsible journalism, in my view. It can hardly qualify as impartial, dispassionate reporting of the news. At best we can view it only as editorializing which obscures or ignores the facts. Point by point, our rebuttal statement is directed at the straw men presented by Kaleidoscope. We believe the Department deserves the opportunity to present the other side of the coin, the positive gains. One of the networks recently ran a magazine advertisement keyed to the question whether two sides of a question are enough. I doubt that you feel only one side is enough. 41 Bennett apparently based his criticism in the popular conception of the FCCs Fairness Doctrine, a journalistic standard of objectivity (not codified by Congress until 1959) obligating a broadcaster, who is licensed by the FCC to operate in the public interest, to afford reasonable opportunity for the presentation and discussion of opposing views on issues of public importance and controversy. The Fairness Doctrine was frequently confused in public discourses with the equal time rule of political broadcasting, yet the two doctrines, as defined by FCC rulings, are quite distinct. The licensee has broad discretion as to programming decisions including the amount of time devoted to the controversy, the issues covered and viewpoints presented. Also, the FCC did not require that individual programs or series of programs be internally balanced, but only that the controversial issues receive a balanced presentation in the licensees overall programming. There was no required

231 ratio of time to be given to the various sides. Ironically, the purpose of the Fairness Doctrine was to provide for greater public access (and the expression of diverse perspectives) to what were then considered the scarce resources of the public airwaves. 42 In the weeks following the broadcast, the Interior Department produced a detailed, 31-page, point-by-point rebuttal of the "charges and accusations" of the broadcast, entitled the "Statement . . . Concerning the Kaleidoscope Television Program of November 16, 1958, on the American Indian." The often-quoted document, written as an answer statement to the television program, was widely distributed to all who contacted the government in the following months. Ultimately, this piece became a major policy statement on Indian affairs. 43 The explicit purpose of the Interior Departments Statement was to correct the misleading impressions that were created by the Kaleidoscope presentation, and in so doing the federal agency emphasized two major points: that it was working for and not against the best interests of Indian people and that steps were being taken, and progress was being made, to help our Indian population in realizing their full potentialities as human beings and as citizens of the United States. This Statement requires an extensive description and explanation, since it became the primary counter-document positioned against The American Stranger in the ensuing political controversy. In this massive piece of agency literature, officials stated that prior to rebutting the important charges and accusations made on the Kaleidoscope program and the numerous distortions and false statements it contained, they wanted to provide

232 Facts About Interior Department Indian Programs, an overview of the agencys positive efforts to help Indian people (a significant part of the present-day American Indian story which the television program omitted almost completely). This began with a demonstration of the continued increases in expenditures by the U.S. Government in its special work to help the American Indian people: a budget of $163 million, amounting to $510 for each Indian man, woman and child (not including the many other types of services and benefits which Indians receive from the Federal Government in common with all other citizens). We stress these facts, the Statement asserted, because the Kaleidoscope program carried no hint or suggestion that Interior Department activities for Indian improvement have been dramatically enlarged in recent years: Certainly the early history of our national government's dealings with the American Indian is not one in which any of us can take pride. It is a story chiefly of military conquest--it contains many elements of brutality, deceit, and contemptuous disregard for human rights. However, for about 75 years now the main emphasis of the Federal Government has been on working helpfully with and for the Indian people. Over the whole period literally hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on such activities. Why, then, the Statement rhetorically asked, do we still have a so-called Indian problem in the United States today? The agency provided historical explanations for which it accepted some responsibility, such as the history of federal paternalism that has, in the past, given the Indians every reason to believe it would always furnish their food, lodging, and other services free. This has had the effect of dampening Indian initiative and encouraging an attitude of drift. However, the agency attributed much of the continued Indian Problem to certain persons and

233 organizations outside of Government have been over-emphasizing the differences between Indians and their non-Indian neighbors, [who] have tried in every way possible to keep the Indians set apart from the general population, [and who] have constantly hammered away on the theme that the Indians would fall into difficulties if they should leave the familiar environment of the reservations. As a result, the agency claimed, most of the Indian population had remained on the reservations, and (taking an ecological approach) today the reservation population was too large to be supported by the natural resources therein. For example, they claimed that the most hopeful estimates by experts had concluded that the Navajo Reservation lands could only provide a decent livelihood for a maximum of 45,000 people, yet the reservation population was nearing 100,000. Similarly, the Interior Department claimed that the resources of South Dakotas Pine Ridge Reservation could only support about 500 families, yet the 1958 population was approximately 1,800 families. To address this basic problem, the Bureau of Indian Affairs had initiated a program with three main objectives: improved health, education, and opportunities for making an adequate living. The health program had in 1955 been transferred to the United States Public Health Service. The agency boasted that great progress had been made in education in the past five years (as the Kaleidoscope narrator casually indicated), noting that school enrollment on the Navajo reservation had increased by 40%. The Statement also emphasized the new adult education courses in 75 reservation communities for grown-ups who didn't have the chance to get an

234 education in their childhood, and the growth in college enrollment of Indian youngsters. In terms of the third (economic) objective, the agency bragged of a wide variety of activities dedicated to developing the reservation lands (irrigation systems, soil and water conservation, road construction, development of forest and range resources--to provide the Indian owners with maximum income from their controlled use--and development of oil, gas and mineral resources). The Statement noted that the total Indian income from oil and gas leasing had tripled over the past six years, from $18.6 million to $55 million. However, the agency emphasized the rationale for their major emphasis, the Relocation Program: The reservation resources cannot possibly support more than a fraction of the present population. Furthermore, the proportion of Indian people who actually want to engage in farming or livestock operations is about as small as it is in the general population; in other words, it is definitely a minority group. To provide opportunities for those who prefer some other line of work, . . . we help those who wish to leave the reservations for urban areas where there are more jobs, and better ones. We do not force them into leaving. But if they ask for help, we give it. . . . Indian workers and family dependents are given financial aid in making the move and are given practical help in finding jobs, locating suitable housing, and getting generally adjusted in their new localities. Over the past six years, the report noted, more than 20,000 Indian men, women and children have moved from the reservations with Bureau assistance under this program, and a substantial majority of them are undoubtedly enjoying today better incomes and higher standards of living than they have ever previously known. The agency admitted the existence of needs of a third group of Indian people: those who have no prospect of making a living from the reservation land and no wish to

235 take up life in a wholly strange environment. To help in these cases, the agency was working on a relatively new program to attract new industries into the vicinity of reservations. The Statement presented a type of disclaimer, however, which tossed the ball of responsibility back onto the shoulders of the Indian people: Obviously our work cannot be expected to solve all problems overnight or to eliminate all the difficulties of every Indian family. Among Indians, as among other peoples, many lack the will and the ambition to take advantage of the opportunities that are offered. The percentage of such persons on reservations is greater than elsewhere because of lack of education, lack of economic opportunities, and the paternalistic system under which they have been raised. On many reservations an attitude of defeatism and indifference has developed over the years that will not be easily or quickly dispelled. Through such statements, even while halfway acknowledging the malignant effect of the colonial system upon Indian communities, the agency incorporated and perpetuated stereotypical discourses that attributed the failure of the federal efforts to the essential (psychological) and culturally-produced natures of Indian people. The Statement criticized the NBC broadcast for focusing attention on scenes of Indian poverty and hardship while virtually ignoring the many constructive programs that are certainly an equally important part of the whole factual picture. After this overview of their constructive and positive contributions to the development of Americas Indian peoples, the Interior Department turned to The American Stranger (always referring to it as Kaleidoscope) in defensive rebuttal. First, the agency officials decried McCormicks apparent lack of interest in developing his story around the agencys agenda: Mr. Robert McCormick, the telecast's narrator, chose not to consult us while he was working on the Blackfeet and Flathead Reservations in Montana--or before that time. Later, however, about two weeks before

236 his show went on the air, he spent several hours at the Bureau's office in Washington and talked at some length with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and various staff members. He was given all of the important facts we have presented here about the Bureau's present work among the Indians, and yet, apart from a cursory reference to educational progress and greater experience of Indians in managing their own affairs, the television show failed to give these facts. In fact, the narrator showed a skill for disregarding any recollection he might be expected to have about what we are actually doing for the Indian people. The Statement then proceeded to attack McCormick (the telecast narrator) by aligning him with the most persistent, outspoken, and harshly critical opponents of the Interior Department--"Indian lawyers and lobbyists" (such as the unnamed pro-Indian interest organizations) who perpetrated a line of propaganda. . . [a] distorted and inadequate picture: The result, not surprisingly, was a thoroughly slanted and false picture of the present situation among the American Indian people. Instead of giving an objective discussion of complex Indian questions, the narrator let himself be sold on sensationalism and phony emotional appeal. The telecast's central editorial conclusion was that we are deliberately engaged in a program to separate the Indians from their lands by terminating the Federal trusteeship and by allowing individual Indians to sell their privately owned lands even when such sales are bad for them. This conclusion was based almost entirely on false statements of fact and clever insinuations. Interior Department officials acknowledged that most of the television viewers would have had little or no previous knowledge of Indian matters. It was certain, then, based on the distortions of the broadcast, that they would receive a wholly erroneous impression that the Bureau of Indian Affairs is doing little or nothing to help Indian people: On the contrary, they have been left with the thought that the Bureau, either through incompetence or maliciousness, is actually working against the Indians' best interests. It is shocking that a television

237 program with millions of viewers should plant in their minds such a false and distorted image. The American television audience is entitled to a more responsible and well-rounded reporting of public affairs. In fairness to the American people, the Statement continued, providing justification for its own excessive length, they should be permitted to have the facts of major importance which were excluded from even casual mention. This provided an introduction to the false and misleading statements . . . true facts section of the Statement, in which Interior Department officials reviewed the transcript and the kinescope to create a detailed, line-by-line counter-argument to the assertions made in The American Stranger. Regarding the statements made by McCormick in the Menominee segment, the Interior Department provided the True Facts: In the first place, the statement that the tax-free status of the Menominee forest is the tribe's "only capital asset" is patently untrue. The forest itself and the Menominee lumber mill, conservatively appraised at $35,000,000 by the Wisconsin Department of Taxation, are the tribe's principal assets. They are debt-free, and they constitute an important economic enterprise from which the great majority of tribal members derive their livelihood in wages and in dividends from the profits. Secondly, although the narrator did not actually say so, the context in which the comment appears left the impression that the Indians were forced to surrender their forest, which is in fact their capital asset, to the greedy white man. That is of course not true. Thirdly, there is nothing in any of the ten treaties between the Menominee Tribe and the United States (negotiated between 1817 and 1856) which guarantees the tax-exempt status of the forest. The only treaty which has any bearing on this point is one negotiated in 1854 which provides that the lands comprising the reservation in Wisconsin are "to be held as Indian lands are held." This is hardly a guarantee of perpetual tax exemption since Indian lands are held in various ways (including in taxable status) as the Congress may prescribe.

238 Furthermore, the last (1856) treaty negotiated with the Menominees makes it abundantly clear that no treaty abrogation was involved when Congress enacted the Menominee Termination Act in 1954. This 1856 treaty specifically stated that "In case this agreement and the treaties made previously with the Menominees should prove insufficient, from causes which cannot now be foreseen . . Congress may, hereafter, make such provision by law, as experience shall prove to be necessary." This whole question of treaty violation was the subject of Congressional hearings in 1954 and the tribal attorney, who originally maintained that a violation was involved, later publicly took it all back. The Department originally reported favorably on the bill to make a per capita payment to each member of the Menominee Tribe. When Congress proposed to couple this payment with a termination of the Federal trust, we did nothing to discourage the legislation that would give the Menominee Tribe full and unrestricted control over its own property and that would make the property subject to taxation like the property of any other group of citizens organized in a profit-making enterprise. We believed in 1954 that the members of the Menominee Tribe were, as a group, well enough educated and sufficiently skilled in economic activity to be fully capable of managing their own affairs without further Federal trusteeship. It still believes so today. Furthermore, the tribe has officially accepted this position and is now actively engaged in preparing for the assumption of full management responsibilities. This was followed by a lengthy explanation of a controversy regarding the 1955 per-capita distribution of several million dollars in tribal funds from the lumber mill that had been incorrectly withheld since 1934. Contrary to the impression which the narrator left with his audience, we are certain that the Congressmen, the tribal leaders who endorsed the program, and all other responsible persons who had anything to do with the termination legislation have always believed that it would work. Rather than being frustrated as claimed by the narrator, they are delighted that their faith in the Menominees is paying off.

239 In response to Rep. Lee Metcalfs claim that BIA policies are calculated to sandbag the Indians into selling their land and their other resources, the Interior Department argued with the True Facts: The Congressman's statement is totally untrue. The Bureau does not "sandbag" the Indians into selling their lands and other resources. It does not even encourage such sales. In fact, the Bureau policy goes so far in helping tribes to buy up the lands offered for sale by individual Indians that it is incurring the risk of violating individual property rights. The federal Statement provided background facts about the federal classification of Indian lands, to make this whole matter more understandable: Indian lands today are of two principal kinds: (1) tribal lands which are owned in common by all the members of the tribal group, and (2) allotted lands which are the private property of individual Indians. Tribal lands make up about three-fourths of the total and . . . cannot be sold under any circumstances unless Congress gives approval. Allotted lands are tracts which were given to individual Indians, for the most part 50 years or more ago, when some of the reservations were divided up under terms of Congressional laws. They vary in size from about 10 acres to several hundred. In each case the original owner was given a patent or deed which made him a property owner just like any other American property holder, with one exception. Unlike the ordinary owner of property, the Indian cannot sell his property unless the Department of the Interior approves. That is how the Department and Bureau get involved in this picture, the Statement explained, and why it is possible for someone like Congressman Metcalf to make the charges that he does. The Statement acknowledged the basic ideological issue underlying the Indian land controversy, the conflict between its perception of individual rights to ownership of private property and the claims of sovereignty by the corporate tribal nations: Because the land is a matter of deep emotional importance to many Indian people, the Department faces an extremely difficult problem in weighing the property rights of the individual Indian against the desire

240 which tribal groups often have to keep these lands in Indian ownership. At various times in the past the scale has been tipped now one way, now another. During 1930's and 1940's, for example, the balance was heavily in favor of the tribal groups; individual Indians were bluntly told that they would not be permitted to sell their lands except to other Indians or to tribes. This, of course, sharply narrowed the market and meant that few Indian landowners could hope to sell their lands for as much as they might get through free and open bidding. The Statement continued: Like other landowners, Indians often have good personal reasons for wanting to sell their real estate. In many cases these lands yield little or no annual rental for the owner and yet a conversion of the land into cash may be vitally important to his personal financial situation. So many of these Indians owning allotments were put to considerable inconvenience and sometimes actual hardship during the 1930's and 1940's when the Government made it so difficult for them to dispose of their allotments. And eventually they found a way out. They learned they could persuade a member of Congress to introduce a private bill that would take off the governmental restrictions and let the Indian sell his land just like anyone else. After World War II a large number of such bills were introduced in each Congressional session and a substantial number were enacted in spite of Interior Department recommendations to the contrary. Contextualizing their land policies, the agency emphasized: It is against this background that our present policy was adopted. The heart of this policy is that it recognizes the property rights of the individual Indian as superior to the interests of the tribe. If the Indian wants to sell his land and it seems clear that a sale would be advantageous to him, not just immediately but over a period of years, then a sale is authorized. In some cases, where the Indian has demonstrated that he can take care of himself in business transactions, this is accomplished by giving him an unrestricted deed to his property. In other cases, where the Indian is not so skilled in these matters, the Bureau of Indian Affairs handles the sale on his behalf and makes the money available to him under a plan set up to protect him against waste or dissipation of his assets. [italics added] The Interior Department Statement continued: As already indicated, the policy also helps the tribal groups to buy up these individually owned lands if they wish to do so. This is

241 accomplished in several ways. First, the Bureau encourages the Indian to let the tribe make an offer for the land. Secondly, if the Indian owner insists on free competitive bidding, then he is urged to let the tribe match the high bid. Finally, if the tribe has not been able to buy the tract under either of these methods, it is given another chance to make the purchase at an auction in competition with other bidders. From this brief summary, the Statement asserted, it should be clear why we said at the beginning that this policy goes so far in encouraging tribal purchases that it comes dangerously close to violating the property rights of individual Indians. We believe that if it were pushed any further, the Department could justifiably be accused of penalizing the individual Indian citizen in the interests of tribal organizations. [italics added] Regarding Metcalfs assertion that a type of informal, under-the-table blackmailing exists for tribes which are reluctant to cooperate with termination proceedings--for example, withholding tribal funds or creating so much red tape that you can't get a loan in time, the Interior Departments True Facts response was what one might expect: The Congressman's statement is entirely without foundation. Actually on June 30 last, the total volume of the Bureau's financing activities throughout the country was $30,557,150, representing both loans from the revolving credit fund and advances of tribal funds. Of this amount only four percent was for tribes covered by terminal legislation. The Statement also provided lengthy and argumentative explanations that presented their True Facts version of controversies surrounding the cutbacks in law-and-order services on the Omaha reservation and the infamous Northern Cheyenne land sale (in which the tribe sold their herd of cattle in order to get money to buy major tracts of allotted land that the Bureau was auctioning, but were unable

242 to do so because the funds were not available in time from the federal agency that managed them). 44 In terms of the issues surrounding the projected disposition of Kerr Dam on Montanas Flathead reservation should the Flathead Termination Bill have gone through, the Interior Department took issue with Metcalfs claim that Montana Power would have been the only logical and serious bidder in what would have amounted to a forced sale. 45 With regard to the issue of the Flathead reservations irrigation system (What irritates the Flathead leaders even more is the fact that Montana Power sells electricity to the irrigation system, which then sells it to the Indians, electricity developed from their own water"), the Statement denied that the irrigation system diverted to non-Indian land any water that the Indian lands are entitled to receive. The True Facts were: The telecast was guilty of deception in implying that water from Indian land is used on non-Indian land. Moreover, the lease of the power project site to the private utility company was a great benefit to the tribe. The valuable water resource involved here is very much like similar water resources elsewhere. Their potential value cannot be realized until money is spent to develop them, In this case, more than $100,000,000 was invested to develop the dam and generating facilities. Private enterprise was the only available source for funds. The Statement also provided a history, from the Interior Department's perspective, of the Flathead Power Project. 46 The Interior Department Statement provided a lengthy and historically-based rebuttal to McCormicks claim that, although the Flathead Termination Bill had died in committee, Indian Bureau officials haven't given up . . . , frequently [reminding] the Flatheads that they must some day accept termination, that they must begin preparations now, and his generalization from this that As a matter of plain fact, the

243 pressures on all Indians to accept termination are pervasive. They aren't always specific but they're there, sometimes expressed by the attitudes of Indian Bureau officials, sometimes by propaganda, sometimes by downright threats, and sometimes the Indians are afraid to fight back." The Interior Department Statements True Facts response to this central assertion of the documentary began: Kaleidoscope gives the impression that the "Termination Policy" is of recent origin. The inference is that it has existed only since Congressional passage of House Concurrent Resolution 108 in 1953. Since this was the basic premise, it seems worth while to recite a little history. Their history lesson of True Facts cited phrases in an 1855 Wyandotte treaty, an 1862 Ottawa treaty, the 1887 Allotment Act that looked in the same direction, 1876 termination legislation proposed by Secretary of the Interior Chandler, an 1899 Board of Indian Commissioners report, 1906 Congressional action with regard to the Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma, a 1917 statement by Commissioner Cato Sells, and the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924--all pointing to the inevitable end of the special protective relationship between the U.S. Government and various Indian tribes. As the 1928 Meriam Report concluded, the concern was not with whether there should be termination of Federal trusteeship over Indians, but how and when. The Statement even justified the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act as pro-termination through a skewed interpretation that collapsed many important distinctions, quoting an IRA sponsor as saying, "I feel that what we ought to be working for with reference to the Indians is eventually to abolish entirely the Indian Bureau, through which and on which we are spending millions of dollars. This bill is a step in that direction by seeking to impose upon the Indians self-government in their own affairs."

244 The agency recounted more recent steps toward termination beginning in 1943 and leading up to the 1953 passage of HCR 108: In the light of this background, it should be clear that there is nothing heinous or sinister about merely reminding Indians that Federal trusteeship over their property and affairs can hardly be expected to continue indefinitely and that they should be planning and preparing themselves for eventual independence. When the narrator says that the "pressures" on Indians to accept termination "aren't always specific", we suspect that this is because he has found no evidence of any coercions. Actually over the past several years the Bureau has been emphasizing Indian programming for economic and social advancement so that Indians will be prepared for eventual full management of their own affairs. With regard to McCormicks remarks about Interior Secretary Fred Seatons radio speech and the possible political motives associated with Barry Goldwaters campaign, the Interior Department responded with the True Facts that quoted lengthy passages from the September 18 policy statement and emphasized: Since enactment of House Concurrent Resolution No. 108, which directed the Department to prepare termination bills for certain specifically named tribes, the Department has not proposed a single termination bill to Congress without the concurrence of the Indian group affected. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has not descended to heckling, threatening, economic bullying or otherwise pressuring unwilling tribal groups to accept termination. In essence, all the Department has done has been to advise tribal groups it is not realistic to expect Federal trusteeship to continue for eternity. Tribal groups have been told they should begin planning for their own economic and social progress so they can be prepared and equipped for eventual independence, on the same plane as other Americans. One of the most hotly-contested issues raised by the broadcast was the case of Hill 57 in Great Falls, Montana. The Interior Department response to this is cited in full: The so-called Hill 57, near the thriving community of Great Falls, Montana, is not even remotely connected with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It is not a reservation. It never was part of a reservation, The

245 people living there include Indians from Canada and Indians who never have lived on a reservation. Hill 57 is a blighted urban area and entirely the responsibility of the citizens of Great Falls. Great Falls utilizes Hill 57 residents as a labor pool. The situation at Hill 57 is precisely like the slum areas of the Nation's Capitol and all the slums in all the other cities of the country. It is a local problem. We hope Great Falls finds a cure for it as we hope all cities can find a solution to all the slums. In response to the claims presented in The American Stranger about the financial hardships of the Blackfeet Tribe, particularly the claim that the federal agency was denying the Tribe funding for general relief assistance, the Interior Departments True Facts asserted: We are ready to take any steps necessary to prevent hardship or suffering on the Blackfeet Reservation. Contrary to the impression created by the telecast, the Blackfeet Tribe has had considerable tribal income in the past few years. From oil and gas resources alone, the tribal income since 1953 has been as follows: 1953 1954 1955 $ 390,000 1956 $2,497,000 433,000 1957 684,000 2,094,000 1958 335,000

Thus, the six-year tribal income has been $6,433,000. Since the Tribe has about 1,000 families, this is the equivalent of $6,433 for each family. There has been also additional tribal income from other sources. However, that amount is not known to the Bureau since the Blackfeet Tribe under its constitution is not required to report such income or expenditures to the Bureau. By referendum, the Tribe has adopted a policy of paying out 50 percent of tribal income in per capita payments to tribal members. In addition, some tribal members who own individual allotments have been receiving income from oil and gas leases. During the past six years they received $1,561,000 from oil and gas resources alone. The federal agency provided their rationale for what McCormick had charged was bureaucratic red tape to delay the provision of funds to the Blackfeet tribe, emphasizing that, It is in this context that our request for a statement of the Tribe's financial condition must be considered:

246 The Tribe has previously been willing to help provide general assistance for its own needy members, [as] in non-Indian communities. The Federal Government does not pay the relief bills for all the cities and towns in the country. Each community is expected to do all it can to care for its own people. Under the arrangement that has been in effect in the past, the tribe has contributed $40,000 annually for this purpose. The two adjoining counties have contributed at total of $15,000 each year and have administered the program. This arrangement has been in line with the general policy that tribes with adequate money should help their needy members and that Indians should receive welfare assistance, wherever possible, from the same agencies that provide it to non-Indian citizens. The Statement continued: Last May the Blackfeet Tribe submitted to the Bureau's Area Office in Billings a request for $50,000 of Federal funds for general assistance for the coming fiscal year. The Tribe did not explain what money it had on hand. The Area Office asked the tribe to submit a justification of the need for Federal funds for assistance, including a statement of the tribe's financial condition. This was not "gobbledygook. " When a Federal agency goes to Congress for money, it must explain why it needs the money, and tell what money it already has available. State legislatures require the same information. So do local governments. Private businesses make their various division heads explain why money is needed, the agency argued. Therefore, The request to the tribe was wholly understandable. The Interior Department pointed out that the Area Office had no way of telling whether the tribe had enough in its bank account to take care of the relief needs on its own, and asserted that to date, the tribe has not submitted the justification, although it has reported it is working on it. They continued: On October 22, 1958, the tribe passed a resolution requesting permission to use $25,000 of its own tribal funds for the general assistance program. We approved. . . . The tribe recognizes the validity of the Bureau's request for a statement of justification and is belatedly beginning to prepare one. Just as soon as it is received, it will

247 be given careful and sympathetic consideration. It was outrageous to charge that the Bureau "has done no more than ask the tribe to audit its books." The True Facts Statement continued with an overview of the welfare program run by the Indian Bureau on the Blackfeet reservation, for which $12,000 had been allotted that, according to the Statement, provided for child welfare for dependent or neglected children (such as boarding school and foster care, and when the counties or other agencies do not furnish such service); advice to Indians with family problems or other serious social problems; help when needed for Indians who do not know how to take care of their own money or their children's funds (Some Indians need such help because they know little or nothing about money; and would otherwise fall prey to swindlers); help and advice for Indians to enable them to get welfare service and resistance from State and local welfare programs for which they are eligible. One social worker was employed by the Blackfeet Agency. In addition to the above-mentioned programs, the Statement continued, Blackfeet Indians receive public assistance under the Social Security Act (Old Age Assistance, Aid to Dependent Children, Aid to the Blind, and Aid to the permanently and totally disabled) from their county welfare departments. Federal funds constitute slightly more than half of these assistance payments. In view of these facts, the Statement concluded, it is shocking to consider that the people in the Indian Bureau stand accused of doing nothing to help the Blackfeet. In regard to Blackfeet land issues, the Interior Department took issue with many of the statements made in the NBC documentary report. First, with regard to

248 the tribal leaders charge that they had been forced to sell key tracts of land, the True Facts presented by the federal agency attested that: No Indian owner has been forced to sell his land, key tract or not. Indeed, insofar as concerns key tracts--that is, tracts which actually control the use of surrounding or adjacent lands--we do not believe any of them have been sold on the Blackfeet Reservation or any other reservation. When the rights of the individual Indian landowner to dispose of his property were finally given full recognition in 1955, the Bureau's policy contained special provisions covering the problem represented by these key tracts. In brief, the policy provided that where a key tract was offered for sale by the Indian owner, the Bureau would take the initiative in consulting with the tribal organization to work out a satisfactory solution. In the three years since that time, we have not been aware of one specific case where a controlling key tract has moved out of Indian ownership. With regard to the comments of Blackfeet administrator Meade Swingley, the agency became even more contentious. Swingley had claimed that the agency had classified his tribal land as grazing rather than farm land, telling him that the only way he could farm it would be if he got a patent for it (meaning that the land would become personal, taxable property). The agencys version of the True Facts were that Mr. Swingley did get a fee patent. But he did not farm the land he mentioned here. Instead he leased it to a non-Indian operator after receiving his fee patent and has subsequently sold it to the Blackfeet Tribe for $20,000. It is true that the Bureau refused him permission to lease it as cropland while it was still in trust status. The reason for this was because the land is at such a high elevation that there is a danger of killing frosts. No crops were produced on this land in 1958. The Interior Department also took issue with McCormicks representation of the contrast between the development of oil and gas wells on either side of the reservation boundary, pointing out that the geology of oil distribution in the area just

249 was not uniform. They also presented a six-year chart of Blackfeet Tribal income from oil and gas leasing of their lands. This chart listed income from tribal lands, allotted lands, and the grand total for each year, with income from tribal lands ranging to a six-year low of $335,000 in 1958 from a peak of $2,500,000 in 1956 (a year, obviously, of phenomenal production). In a related vein, the Statement provided a retort to Blackfeet leader Iliff McKays explanation that Indian land must be leased according to Interior Department Rules, and his interpretation that I believe that actually discourages an operator from coming on the reservation to lease land for development. . . ." The agency officials responded that there was no basis for the charge that Federal regulations implemented by the Department discourage leasing or development: The fact is that income to the Indians from lands leased under these regulations has jumped dramatically in recent years, increasing from $18,600,000 in 1952 to more than $55,000,000 in 1958. In 1957 the figure was $72,616,000. [italics added] One of the most eloquent explanations in the broadcast of The American Stranger had come when Iliff McKay provided a tribal perspective on the overarching mode of passive aggressiveness the federal agency had taken with regard to pressuring Indians to dispose of their land: About 50 years ago. . . the Government adopted its policy of what I call, a policy of inaction, which it has been, entirely, as far as this reservation is concerned, has been entirely effective in encouraging Indians to dispose of their land. Indians aren't able to get loans to develop their property. They aren't able to get credit. We are unable to give them the help they need, with our own income. The only collateral they have is their land. So then in order to live, in order to get an existence, they have to dispose of their land to get some immediate cash to live on.

250 Mistakenly attributing this quote to Walter Wetzel, following a mistake in NBCs transcript (though the agency should have known better), the Interior Department provided its own True Facts in response: Blackfeet Indians who have need for loans and qualify for them should have no difficulty in obtaining credit. Loans, however, must not be confused with grants. On June 30, 1958, the tribe had $892,800 outstanding in cash loans, 6,259 head of cattle being used for credit purposes representing an investment of more than $500,000, and had posted a guaranty fund of $50,000 to enable a local production credit association to make loans to tribal members who were unable to qualify for loans under the association's credit standards. There was $107,805 outstanding on loans made by this association. The tribe had over $40,000 cash available for loans on June 30, 1953. . . . The explanation continued, with more figures at great length, about the agencys loan policies and the Tribes debts and expenditures, then ended abruptly. Bennett enclosed a copy of the Interior Departments Statement in his letters to Kintner and to RCA Chairman David Sarnoff. Sarnoff replied to Bennett in early December that he had discussed the matter with Kintner, who was preparing an official reply from the network. 47 That same day (December 4, 1958), the Interior Department issued a press release, as indicated by this Associated Press wire story: The Interior Department wants the National Broadcasting Company to give it television time to present its side of the Indian story as an answer to NBCs Kaleidoscope network show of Nov. 16. Undersecretary Elmer F. Bennett has sent NBC President Robert E. Kintner a detailed criticism of the show. We believe the Department deserves the opportunity to present the other side of the coin, the positive gains, Bennett wrote. Bennett said that he understood Kintners position that the program fairly treated the objectives of the policy of the Indian Bureau. But, the Department felt NBC committed a serious disservice to the American Indian people, and your television audience, as well as to this Department. The press release continued:

251 [Bennett] said the narrator, Robert McCormick, may have been sold a bill of goods. For that reason, we do not wish to be thought hypercritical of his efforts, Bennett said. However, we do question his approach to this problem. The entire program followed a pattern often espoused by a vocal, dissident element that asserts that we are ogres without souls and avowed enemies of the Indians. . . . The basic themes of this program, that this Department seeks to separate the Indian from his land, and that sales of individual Indian allotments are a part and parcel of the termination program are wholly untrue. Bennett also criticized what he said was a suggestion by McCormick that Seaton might have been playing politics with the fate of the Indians so that Senator Barry Goldwater could be re-elected. . . . [A] reference to Mr. Emmons was accompanied by a smearing implication that he was content to sit in Washington spouting philosophic dissertations. 48 In an unusual instance of self-reflexive newscasting, the broadcast of The American Stranger itself even became a newsworthy item on NBC, with this news report that same evening: The National Broadcasting Company on November 16th broadcast a television program in its Kaleidoscope series. . . on the troubles of the American Indian. It reported among other things that there are strong efforts to separate the Indian from his land. Today the Interior Department. . which includes the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs . . protested that the program was unfair and one-sided. And the department asked for television time to tell its side of the story. NBC has made no comment . . except to say it's [sic] reply is in preparation. 49 The Interior Department's "True Facts" Statement was immediately denounced in the press by Montana Congressional leaders, who defended the NBC documentary's stance by repudiating the claims made by the Interior Department. 50 A journalistic standard related to the Fairness Doctrine, but not codified until 1967, was the Personal Attack Rule which held that a network must provide opportunities for reasonable response to anyone whose honesty, character, or integrity are

252 attacked during a presentation of views on a controversial issue of public importance. Apparently Senator Barry Goldwater, offended by perceived insinuations about his own integrity made by McCormick in The American Stranger, also entered into the fray, according to a retrospective account by the AAIA: On Monday [Rep. Lee] Metcalf issued a statement violently in opposition to a demand by Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona for equal time for himself or Commissioner Emmons on the network, on the basis that this was a political broadcast. The request was refused by the Network President, Robert Kintner. 51 An angry citizen/viewer who had been following the subsequent controversy in the press wrote to Assistant Interior Secretary Bennett in the wake of this match, enunciating the perspective of a self-reflective whiteness: I am requesting my Congressman and Senator to give you all possible assistance securing equal time to answer NBCs program on Indian Affairs. I want to see how you can attempt to justify the atrocious treatment, the criminal neglect, the heinous squandering of millions of my and many other taxpayers tax dollars. We whites have been sold a bill of goods; weve paid the bill for years; the Indians dont get the goods. In 1937, 1946, 1952 [my wife] and I traveled thru Arizona, New Mexico and West Texas. We visited the Navajos, Zuni, Hopi and several others. . . We became physically sick from watching these poor people and observing their circumstances. On each occasion I made very strong representation to my Congressman and our Senators for improvement. And you know what happened?Not a God damn thing. [italics added] 52

The Networks Counter-Response In response to the Interior Departments lengthy missives, as well as their request for equal time, NBC President Robert Kintner issued an official reply to Bennett from the network: I want to thank you for your November 26 letter which so thoroughly set forth the position of the Department of the Interior with regard to

253 our television presentation The American Stranger, which we discussed briefly on the telephone. I appreciate the time and effort you have devoted to a detailed exposition of your views, and have studied your letter and its enclosure carefully, have reviewed the points you make with our News Department which was responsible for the preparation of the program, and have again read and reread the script of the program. I am sure you would agree that no useful purpose would be served by conducting an extensive debate through correspondence on every detail of the program and your reactions to it. Instead, I would like to try to put the matter in perspective by dealing with the general issue you raise relating to the fairness and accuracy of the presentation. First, Kintner defended McCormicks credentials and his judgement as a seasoned reporter, using his extensive empirical research to validate the programs voice of authority. Kintner emphasized McCormicks standards of objectivity and claimed a lack of partisanship on the investigators part during the preparation of the documentary: First, I should point out that Mr. McCormick of our News Department, who prepared and presented the program, is a responsible, conscientious reporter of almost 30 years experience. In his long and varied career, which is marked by many outstanding credits, he has established a record and reputation adhering to the highest professional standards of thoroughness and objectivity of reporting. It is not likely that a newsman of his standing and experience would, as you put it--have been "sold a bill of goods" in developing the story of the Indian landholding situation which was presented in the program. Kintner continued: This is particularly true in view of the amount of research and investigation that went into the development of the program. It was not a hastily prepared or superficial treatment, but was based on intensive studies conducted over a period of more than five months. In this connection, Mr. McCormick read every word of the hearings on the Klamath, Menominee and Colville terminations and studied all of the available literature on the specific subject treated in the program. He and other members of our news staff interviewed many authorities on this subject, and in the course of these preparations, Mr. McCormick

254 visited something like a dozen of the reservations for first-hand knowledge. Supporting McCormick's approach, Kintner argued: The purpose of these investigations and the purpose of the program was to develop and present objective information on the particular subject treated. This subject, of course, has had a long history and the program undertook to put it in focus on a current basis. It was not intended to have any implication of partisan politics, and indeed reference was made in the program to the overall Congressional policy over past years and under various administrations in connection with the Indian situation. Kintner then responded to the criticisms by the Interior Department that the documentary had not shown every aspect of what the government was doing for Indian people, claiming that the documentary was an innocent economic and sociological analysis that lacked any political motivations: Next, I would like to emphasize that the program did not undertake or purport to cover every facet of the American Indian's problems and accomplishments, nor to evaluate all phases of governmental programs relating to Indian Affairs. lt centered on one principal issue: the relationship of the Indian to his land; the fact that the total amount of Indian land is diminishing; and the connection of the land termination program with this situation. With regard to Indian lands, Kintner continued: The diminution of Indian lands is, of course, not an opinion, but a fact, as was pointed out by a survey of the Senate Interior Committee, cited by Chairman Murray, which states: "It is a documented fact that the Indian has been separated from his land at an alarmingly increasing rate during the past five years. The Indians have suffered a net loss of two million acres of trust land during the last ten years." "This was the subject of the program," Kintner continued to argue, "and it emphasized that many factors have led to such a result, and that the termination

255 program is not the only effective factor, as much as the specialized literature implies": In fact, as Mr. McCormick stressed on the program "the Indians are being subjected to a wide variety of influences tending to drive them off their land. Having seen the program and read and reread the script, I cannot agree with your view that the "basic themes" of the program were that the Department of the Interior "seeks to separate the Indian from his land," or that "sales of individual Indian allotments are a part and parcel of the termination program. Nor can I find that the total effect of the program would create the impression, as you claim, that "under this Administration the American Indian faces a heartless plot to eradicate him." The program was an economic and sociological analysis of the Indian landholding situation, with no political inferences, intentional or otherwise. In response to Bennetts call for equal time, appealing to the journalistic standards of the Fairness Doctrine, Kintner carefully presented the networks justification against granting such an opportunity: We recognized that by its very nature, a program dealing with this subject was likely to stimulate strong reactions, but did not feel that this in itself should preclude NBC, as a medium of public information, from presenting a subject which is a legitimate matter of public interest. Our News Department did, however, undertake its task with great care and forethought. As I have mentioned, much more time was spent in background research than is typical for such programs; the presentation itself was limited to things it could show and prove, without conclusions of any kind, and every effort was made to avoid overstatement or sensationalism.

256 "In the one hour program," Kintner countered, "only one five-minute sequence could be considered as showing real misery, and this was in a context inherent to the subject matter; and conversely, the program referred to the educational programs established for the Indians, showed Indian children eating hot lunches in a reservation school, and depicted children happily at play, to mention a few examples." He continued: You state that the presentation was incomplete and you cite other things the program could have covered. We do not claim that the program was a complete and comprehensive presentation of all phases of the American Indian; no single program could cover that much ground, and the program did not attempt to do so. But on the subject which the program treated--the loss of land by the Indians as a group and the problems caused the Indians by this trend--the program was as complete and responsible as skill, care and experience could make it. Kintner asserted the NBC position regarding "equal time": It is our policy and purpose to present public issues with accuracy and fairness, and it is in the light of this policy that we have considered your request for equal time to answer the material presented in The American Stranger. We believe that the subject covered in the program was presented accurately, fairly and objectively, and we therefore feel that there is no basis for granting time to answer the presentation. We have, however, given wide public expression to our views of the program and your comments on the subject matter by carrying highlights of your statement criticizing the program, both on our television network evening news presentation "The Huntley-Brinkley Report" and on several of our radio network news programs in prime evening time. The total audience for these broadcasts was many times larger than the audience viewing The American Stranger, so that the expression of your position regarding the program has already received wider circulation over NBC network facilities than the program itself. Kintner's letter to Bennett concluded:

257 Although this letter has been a long one, I have welcomed the opportunity to explain our purpose and position on the matter about which you wrote. 53 An exchange of candid correspondence between Win Fanning, a newspaper columnist from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and NBC News executive William McAndrew sheds light on the feelings of NBC about the controversy. Fanning, who had publicized what he considered the damaging Bureau of Indian Affairs response to the show, had written his journalistic colleague McAndrew to find out if there would be an on-the-air response by the network. McAndrew responded that NBC does not plan to grant equal time to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to answer our Kaleidoscope presentation The American Stranger. He continued: As a newsman yourself, you know that any time you take a stand on a controversial issue, somebody is certain either to accuse you of misquoting them or of uttering outright untruths. I have read the Bureaus thirty pages of comments and I cannot completely agree with you that many of their statements are direct denials. Naturally, no two people as diametrically opposed on the subject as the Bureau and Bob McCormick could come to a complete agreement; however, I am going to do two things: enclose a copy of Bob Kintners reply to the Undersecretary and . . . ask Bob McCormick to phone you in Pittsburgh and give you his version. In his subsequent cover memo to McCormick, McAndrew remarked semi-facetiously and affectionately about McCormicks blasted phase of OPERATION INDIAN: Wish ta hell Id never heard of the Injuns. . . . caused me more typing. . . work. . . blood. . . sweat. . . and tears. . . than all the so-called existing minorities put together. . . . . . . . by God! [ellipses in original]54 In spite of the frustration obviously felt by those on NBCs front line who were required to deal with the federal officials and legislators in this controversy, the

258 responses from the public were overwhelmingly supportive of the network in its decision both to broadcast the documentary and in its subsequent support of the integrity of its journalists and of the anti-government position taken by the piece. In the next section, we turn to look at the flood of supporting correspondence which confirmed any suspicions that some alternate truths to those expounded by the Interior Department had been broadcast nationally for perhaps the first time.

CONTESTED TRUTHS: ALTERNATIVE UNDERSTANDINGS

Inside Knowledge: Confirmations And Validations

Many of the letters received by NBC were first-hand testaments from non-Indian Americans who felt that their position of what we might consider ethnographic authority could affirm and validate the general accuracy of the sentiments and images portrayed by the documentary. These first-hand testimonials were of several types--from people who had either lived, worked and/or spent time in Indian country. Significantly, some of these came from former employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as well as anthropologists, who had worked on the reservations. James Rowe, an attorney who had served on a Presidential task force (the 1948 Hoover Commission) to investigate Indian Affairs, penned the following letter to McCormick, providing a sense of the historical depth of these issues in the living memory of both Indians and non-Indians who had been intimately tied to tribal

259 issues. Rowes letter, expressing fascination with the show, also articulates the unspoken partisan politics of the entire termination situation: The country made me homesick, but the realism (in the best sense of the word) of McCormick the portrait painter made me sick in less attractive ways. Of course, what you did not say--and of course could not--is that each of the national parties has, on the whole, a different approach to the Indians. I do not mean for a moment to say that all the cattlemen and grazing men and oil men and lumber barons are Republicans. Too large a proportion of the robbers are good solid Democrats. Nevertheless, on a national basis, the Democratic Party stands with your Jesuit priest in believing the Indian must be kept on the reservation, and his land and culture protected. The Republican Party believes in the absurd semantics of "assimilation" which is a do-gooder word for disintegration. Rowe perceived McCormicks politics, as expounded by The American Stranger, to be ideologically consonant with the traditional progressive (white) Democratic position laid out in the Indian New Deal: This is an old fight, he noted, adding that Ickes and Collier came into office in 1932 and reversed the old Indian Bureau and pushed the Indian toward where you want him to be pushed. In response, Rowe added, The other side--there are a lot of do-gooders and sincere and decent people on the other side who are being used--immediately began fighting back. Right after your broadcast I took a look at the First Hoover Commission reports. I was a Member of that Commission and I looked at the report on the Indians. Sure enough, Mr. Hoover and his majority wanted to "assimilate" the Indian. I was pleased to note there were dissents on this land policy by Commissioners Dean Acheson, James Forrestal and Rowe. This was in early 1948. Mr. Truman surprised everyone that year so nothing came of it. But something did come of it in 1952 and will so continue until the Democrats regain the White House. I was, at any rate, pleased that there were two "non-Indian" heroes [in the film]. I am an old Jesuit-trained type myself so I expected someone like Father Burns [sic] and, of course, that fellow Lee Metcalf is my own Congressman. 55

260 Another letter came from W. W. Peter, a former employee of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Peters letter is filled with cynicism about the great white man as self-appointed savior of the world, reflecting deeply contradictory philosophies about the imperializing role of the United States both internally and externally. It also reflects the striking differences in attitude between the reformist and Democratic New Deal BIA administrators of the 1930s and those of the Republican 1950s: Mrs. Peter and I served eight years under the U.S. Indian Service on the Navajo-Hopi reservations [before World War II]. What you reported . . . was both heart breaking and heart warming. Obviously in one hour you could not cover all 22 states in which there exist various groups of Indians basking in the effulgent glory of the great white man. If the story of how this self appointed savior of the world has treated Indians, Japanese, and other minority groups in his own country were told in full to the rest of the world, do you think it would encourage the various people whose lives we seem to be wanting to regulate to accept our advice and leadership? Peter's letter continued: I have a strong suspicion that now many of them are busy with both hands. With one hand outstretched, they take our money under various guises. But with the other, and perhaps when our backs are turned, the other hand is used to thumb their noses at our presumptions. One of the crying needs in this country is to pipe down on our blatancy. At the top of our voices from missile bases in Florida and elsewhere we shout to the world and before the actual event, "We're going to do this, We're going to do that We're going to do this, We're going to that Then after the event takes place and goes fut what happens? A large part of my professional life was spent abroad. I have seen USA citizens in action in 38 countries. If someone were to arrange a world contest to find out who has the biggest mouth I know who would win hands down--and mouth open. 56

261 Yet another letter reaffirming NBCs position in the face of federal contradictions came from Morgan Pryse, a former BIA Area Director, who wrote to NBCs President Kintner: I heard the broadcast and was much surprised as to the facts and accuracy of Mr. McCormick's broadcast. Mr. McCormick has not been "sold a bill of goods" and you need have no fears of his statements being refuted. I grew up in and around Indian reservations and joined the Indian Service in 1920, working on various Indian reservations and in its Bureau's regional offices, one of which I established, and in the Washington office of the Commissioner. I retired in 1956 as director of one of the Indian Service Area Offices, some thirty six years, less time spent overseas in command of responsible army field units in the Holy Land and in the invasion of Europe. [italics added] Pryse offered to furnish NBC with many more facts on a subject that time probably did not permit [McCormick] to touch upon in his talk to the radio audience. The broadcast was a distinct service to the Indians and to the country. 57 Other non-Indians whose professions led them to work on Indian reservations wrote NBC to express their agreement, and to lend their authoritative voices to support the veracity of the documentary: The subject of the conduct of the Indian Bureau and its effect on our Indian populations has long needed public airing and you and NBC News are to be congratulated for a job well done. I have worked several summers as a geologist in and around the Navajo and Ute Reservations in Arizona and New Mexico, Utah and Colorado. The Present policies of the Indian Bureau and the tacit approval of these policies by the administration will inevitably cause a destruction of the reservation system within a generation for many tribes at a time when they are not either prepared to nor have the opportunity to make their way in our society. This writer continued: It is not our government's prerogative, either legally or morally, to press for termination of treaties made to tribes in good faith. In all but

262 perhaps a very few cases, the Indian has more than kept his side of the bargain. The moral and legal issues are clear-cut and I believe an informed public opinion would force a nullification or reversal of the present Governmental and Indian Bureau polices, which do little credit either to our country or to the people involved. I sincerely hope that NBC News will not allow the matter to rest with this single broadcast but will see fit publish fully the facts and issues involved in the problem. I can only admire the fortitude with which the Indian has carried his burden as a conquered race and can only feel deeply ashamed of our country's part in bringing him to his present untenable position. 58 Another letter came from a pair of anthropology students: Your report on the American Indian today on the program Kaleidoscope was indeed worthy of commendation. As students of anthropology, we have made some studies of Indian tribes in the state of Washington, and of their complex relationship with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It is easy to make Montana-Menominee-Washington comparisons. Thank you for presenting this factual material and for your courageous questioning and challenging of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We hope that your program and your message reached people who will require corrective action by the government. 59 Though respectful, the rhetoric of these self-professed students of Indian Affairs often worked, usually subtly, to establish their own whiteness and professional class privilege, constructing a distancing between themselves (and by association, their colleagial co-white, co-professionals at NBC) and Native Americans. This position of liberal whiteness frequently incorporated a sense of moral disgrace about the historical behaviors of the white nation into a mindset of responsibility to somehow atone for the sins of the white ancestors: For over a week I have been trying to find time to send you a note of congratulations for your recent program on the American Indians. It was gratifying to see a report produced honestly, without equivocation. As an anthropologist, I have some familiarity with the Indian situation. At the present time my Indian friends on the Lower Colorado River Reservation are planning a withdrawal program.

263 In spite of the fact that they have a number of competent leaders, I have many misgivings about their future welfare. They have a reservation of great economic potential. While there are local social problems to complicate the situation, I know that they have been driven to withdrawal by years of Indian Bureau frustration. Every plan to develop their holdings has been blocked. It is no wonder that they turn to withdrawal as last resort. The writer continued: It seems to me that Indian policy since the end of the John Collier era has been a moral disgrace. Your program indicates to me that you feel the same way, and I admire you for stating your conviction so clearly. Let us hope that your report stimulates enough public pressure to start the Bureau on a program of assisting Indians rather than destroying them. [italics added] 60 Other letters read: Please accept our congratulations and appreciation. . . . We are also more than a bit interested in this phase of American life. We have made several trips to Western reservations to study and photograph conditions there. We have seen the Blackfeet Reservation, Crow, several of the Sioux in South and North Dakota. We have made photos in Cherokee, Pueblo and Papago areas. Today we belong to Arrow, Inc., N.C.A.I., American Association on Indian Affairs and also lend assistance to Indians on a personal level. We, Mrs. Lewis and I hope that your wonderfully effective program will help to awaken many more people to the need for changing the official attitude towards Indians and making them fellow citizens with equal rights and not strangers in their own land. 61 I would like to request more programs--perhaps a series--be done on this national problem which is really a national shame. Other areas which would bear exploration are the Indian peoples of the Southwest; relocation and social service problems of Indian migrants to large cities such as Los Angeles and Chicago; the lack of medical, legal, educational and social aids available to our Indian people; and the

264 cultural background and artistic achievements which are admirable contributions to "The American Way of Life." I spent a summer working with Indians in the Southwest and became acutely aware of the vastness of the problems facing them and the astonishing lack of public and governmental concern and understanding of these Americans. Your program was a fine contribution. 62 McCormick received several pieces of correspondence from fellow journalist Dorothy Van de Mark, whose own expos on Indian Affairs, The Raid on the Reservations, in the March, 1956, issue of Harpers Magazine, had also triggered a defensive and verbose reaction from the Interior Department. She described the documentary as damned good. . . a really beautiful, honest, whole piece of reporting that is like a great blast of fresh air right through the gobbledegook. Commenting that she hadnt expected this type of television report for at least ten years, Van de Mark added, Your job of reporting and the fact that NBC let it be aired are events of major importance. Mimicking another television network, she decried the lack of such programming due to the fear: DONT MENTION INDIANS TO ME! INDIANS ARE CONTROVERSIAL! With sympathetic anger and complicity, she remarked that Emmons theme song, Too Many Indians and Too Little Land ought to be stuffed down his gullet. Finally, in an insightful remark about the general invisibility of the structuring principles of power-wielding, and to explain her own excitement about such investigative journalism, she remarked: It is a zestful business, when the unsaid gets said! 63

265 The network also received many thoughtful personal statements and narratives from people without professional expertise who wanted to share personal observations based upon their trips through Indian country, including this one which included a richly-colored personal narrative of personal awakening that parallels McCormicks own discoveries--and illustrations of second-hand but observed truths about discrimination and racism: We have just seen your news report, The American Stranger, and felt impelled to add our voice to the cause of the Indian. From all that I have learned about the tragic plight of these first real Americans, I felt certain that your presentation was factually accurate. It hardly seems possible that a nation that speaks incessantly of human rights should be capable of such inhuman treatment of others. From all appearances, it seems that those who would wipe out the Indian place their own prospects for wealth above the basic consideration of our fellow man. The personal narrative began: May I add some information of my own to your files? Several months ago, my family and I were living and working in Nebraska and South Dakota. We had never been West before. This is what we found. Indians in general are held in low esteem. Discrimination is the word for it. Speaking with a non-Indian old timer, I learned of this prejudice that an Indian is unreliable, untrustworthy, and lazy. We heard of, and saw, living conditions that made us recoil. A young social worker in Dakota told us of his problems. He has the task of placing in decent home, scores of illegitimate Indian babies. Many new-born die soon after birth because of unsanitary surroundings. To make things worse, many people take in orphaned children merely to collect the cash allotment from the State. The writer continued: One day, at a rodeo in Oelrichs, Dakota, a tall, strong, bright charming Indian cowboy told me of the difficulty he has finding a job. He wondered whether there was discrimination in the East against Indians. And in our trips around the State, we saw some of the "houses" inhabited by Indians. They were no less that squalid

266 completely lacking any of the qualities described in even a humble but comfortable, decent home. Finally, we heard of how the U.S. Government keeps its promises. The Indians (Sioux, to be exact) have been paid for the acquisition of the fabulously wealthy Black Hills. The Government does a very poor job of distributing food to needy Indian families. For a month, for a large family, about ten pounds of food must suffice. This is what we learned in our stay in the West. We wonder what is being done to reverse the destruction of the Indian, his culture, his spirit. We can only conclude that the non-Indians, who actively exploit the situation, and those in government who allow this degradation and in fact promote it, are perfectly incapable of human decency. I wonder whether or not the crying out of the Indian was a part, an inevitable part, of the march of the non-Indian across our country? I wonder whether or not something can be done? This letter ended with an impassioned plea for McCormick to "add our voice to yours, and send out the call for help to the Congress, to those who are especially in a position to have corrective measures enacted": The non-Indian public must know more, and be moved to action. But, if history teaches anything, we can expect that indeed absolutely nothing will be done, until the emotional, non-Indian, advertising-conditioned public is excitedly aroused. Even then, the chances for improvement would appear to be slight. Unfortunately, those in power see fit to thus deal with this once-great people, the Indians. Equally unfortunate is the lack of the knowledge to fight in the peculiar ways of the white, on the part of the Indian. He shows ability to defend himself, but appears weak, broken of spirit, and helpless on the whole. Let us hope for their rescue from the clutches of oblivion. [italics added] 64 Some letters were from people who were non-Indian but had married into a tribal culture, and who provided their own personal insights into Indian truths. The second of these (below) expresses the frequently-admitted white shame and outrage, as well as Christian rhetoric against racism. It is representative of many of the letters received by McCormick that expressed deep personal reflection on the issues raised by the documentary and that were often written by hand in a rambling

267 style (as if the therapy of writing satisfied the need to express these tormenting thoughts and feelings of anger and shame) : It was good to hear your broadcast on Kaleidoscope. As one who has done over 40 years of research in Indian matters, I congratulate you on the accuracy of your broadcast and the courage which prompted it. Please repeat and follow up. The Truth will out. 65 It is quite some time ago since I listened to your talk on TV pertaining to the Red Indian, since then I have been ill and have been unable to write to you, which I had intended to do as soon as your talk was finished. I have been interested in the Indian always for he is a human being as the rest of us, although there are some who think otherwise. I have been married to a man of Indian blood; some are bad and some are good as in every human being. I have traveled through the Old West and have some time been in Indian teepees and have followed their customs. This viewer continued: What are we anyway, to take their country without permission, we kill them off, kill their buffalo, and we think they are scum--what a dreadful shame. Are they still not wards of the U.S. Government? At least that was the understanding in the beginning yet we have betrayed them in every way we could think of, there is not a more fully developed race on the face of this earth than the white race and who are we to take every thing from the Indian, now their own reservations. Are we so greedy that we have to do these things? And what has our government done for them? We took gold, silver and every mineral we could find, and never paid the Indian a dime. What right have any of us to call ourselves American Citizens when the only true citizens are the red Indians, have more right to the name. It makes my blood boil when I hear people talk about the Indian as some people do. Intolerance is one of the worst deadliest of sins, and at the foot of the Cross there were no thoughts of color and different nationalities. Our Lord has no thought of black, red or white only that we do right to one another. More white shame followed: But Im very much afraid that we have forgotten what America means anymore, and we do not believe that the Indian fought back in retaliation for the injustices done to him and the rest of the tribes by the so-called white race, I wonder if we are any better than they, for we

268 tolerate such things. I myself can do nothing for I am partially crippled from a stroke, but were I able I would do my best to do something, and now I understand the New York Power Company wants to take the reservation from the Tuscarora tribe, did we not make a treaty with them, are we people of our word or not or is it just greediness. I suspect the latter as it was in the Old West, I feel sorry for the suffering that is coming to us in the future. . . . What a lot we have to answer for. God help us, when the time comes. 66 A letter from a Jesuit priest, the Seattle-based Father James Hurley (a colleague of Father Byrnes), also speaks to the potential of television as a medium, a topic to which I will return: I planned for a week and arranged my time for Sunday afternoon and the N.B.C. Kaleidoscope presentation of the problem of the American Indian. I was not disappointed. For several reasons it was a thrilling experience. First, because I traveled through the same parts of Montana last summer (Heart Butte, Polson, St. Ignatius) and for much the same reason. Second, because the proposition you defended so eloquently in picture and comment, is a proposition that many of us who know the Indians have fought . . . often in vain . . . to bring to the attention of the American people. Third, because you featured so prominently my friend Fr. Byrne whose enthusiasm for and love of the Indians is unsurpassed. The boldness of your indictment was an inspiration. (I can already hear the cries for "equal time.") You have proved the worth and value of the T.V. editorial. I look forward to more editorial comment on our national problems and will thank you for it even though I may at times reserve my right to disagree. [italics added] 67 Some experts in Indian matters provided suggestions for future programs. McCormick and NBC also received many votes of respect, affirmation and validation of their position from organizations whose special interests converged with the issues raised by The American Stranger. Many, such as this letter to McCormick from the Womens International League for Peace and Freedom, emphasized the

269 powerful voice of television in helping to achieve greater public understanding of political issues: I hope the millions who probably saw your moving report on the plight of the American Indian (or the Indian American) yesterday afternoon will be moved to such righteous indignation and shame for the treatment of the Indians by our Government and agents, agencies and citizens who are exploiting them that something may be accomplished toward Congressional investigation and correction. I would like to commend both you and the National Broadcasting Company for your fearless handling of this somewhat controversial subject. You brought to our attention in most dramatic ways, the corruption which is taking place in the administration of Indian affairs--especially in connection with the dishonest methods used to force the Indians to sell their valuable land--and dissipate their heritage. It is a shameful business and we should not rest until whatever reparation can be made, has been accomplished. [italics added] 68 "Now that your powerful voice has been raised in their behalf," the writer continued, "we are encouraged to hope that something constructive can be accomplished." Another letter, from an officer of the Save the Children Federation who was formerly an employee of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, authenticates the evils of some of the Indian programs such as those portrayed in the NBC report: May I congratulate you on the excellent program dealing with the American Indian which you did for Kaleidoscope last Sunday. As a former Director of Education in the United States Indian Service, I am very familiar with both the Blackfeet and Flathead reservations. . . . Your program was excellent, and I hope it reached a large audience. The kind of frank presentation of the evils of some of the present Indian programs which you indulged in are long overdue. While the Congressional Resolution on Termination was undoubtedly the justification for many of the steps taken, the worst part of it has been the prosecution of the worst aspect of the program by the Bureau on its own initiative. I hope this presentation may be followed by others, for in some ways vou have chosen an area where the numbers of Indians involved, and the injustices of the present program are minor, in comparison to what is happening to some of the larger tribes. I hope that the responses to this presentation will encourage you and

270 the network and some sponsor to a further analysis of what is happening to other tribes. 69 Of the three leading Indian advocacy organizations, the Philadelphia-based Indian Rights Association was the least involved in the production of The American Stranger, unlike the AAIA and the NCAI. However, the organizations leader wrote to McCormick with that groups endorsement of the position taken by the show: I want to congratulate you on . . . The American Stranger. It seems to me that you did an excellent job in going to the heart of the current needs of the American Indians and of presenting these needs in a most effective manner. I hope more of this sort of thing can be done. Please be assured of my sincere appreciation of what you have done to present the case of the American Indians to the Nation. 70 The American Stranger also garnered the attention of national conservation and forestry groups that had a strong interest in conserving the abundant forested land that still existed, often in virgin form, on many Indian reservations (especially the Menominee forests of Wisconsin and the Klamath forests of Oregon). Because of the centrality of issues of land use--and questions about the extraction and exploitation of the natural resources therein--to the controversies surrounding the ownership and disposition of federal trust land assigned to Indian tribes, these conservation groups followed the termination debates very closely, and occasionally became involved in lobbying on the behalf of the interests of certain tribes. Charles Stoddard, Chief of Forestry for the Washington, D.C.-based conservation organization Resources for the Future, Inc., wrote to McCormick with great appreciation: On behalf of several of my associates and myself who were tremendously impressed by your documentary on the American Indian termination program, I want to express our genuine appreciation of a

271 job well done. For the first time the American public has had an inside view of the problems of the reservation Indian. Colleagues of mine who have had an intimate knowledge of Indian affairs in the Department of Interior feel that your portrait was accurate, understanding and courageous. Stoddard also made note of the potential of the television medium to expose political issues to the public sphere: Most significant thing that has impressed people in your presentation has been the willingness with which a national television network has come to grips with a controversial subject. I am certain there has been a great deal of favorable viewer response; and I am certain the same kind of response will be gained with other important national subjects which may be controversial. Impartially handled controversy in which both sides are presented is the finest kind of public education. I sincerely hope that you can take on other subjects in public affairs such as conservation, migrant worker problems and others which the people lack a complete understanding. 71 Another conservation association, the National Wildlife Federation, expressed similar interest in the NBC documentary and its outcome in a letter to McCormick: Congratulations upon your recent television program which treated fairly and in a most informational manner the controversy over termination of federal supervision of the American Indian. The National Wildlife Federation and other conservation organizations have become actively interested in the Indian termination problem because of the resource management questions that frequently are involved. The [NBC network] is rendering an important public service in its presentation of such public issues. Should you schedule such programs in the future, we should be pleased to have the opportunity to assist in the advanced publicity. 72 Some of the only criticism of the broadcast came from the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., a Protestant mission-oriented organization that had

272 a Committee on Indian Work. This missionary-type of religious organization seems to have taken a more conservative approach, both socially and politically, than that taken by the Jesuit priests and activist nuns like Father Byrne and Sister Providencia who also worked in Indian communities. NBC received two critical letters from representatives of this assimilationist organization, one from an operational staff member and another from members of the policy-making group on Indian mission work. The first, from the Reverend Russell Carter, berates NBC for failing to portray those Indians who have made great strides toward a happy solution to their problems. Although I am Field Representative for Indian Work, Division Of Home Missions, National Council Of Churches, I am writing you as a private citizen who is greatly disappointed in the scope and nature of your reporting on the Indian situation as witnessed on the Kaleidoscope Hour Sunday, November 16. Were you endeavoring to relay factual information or were you attempting to propagate a viewpoint? The Reverend Carter added that he had no inclination "to draw a brief for the Bureau of Indian Affairs," since "I have had my full share of disagreement at times": In the 25 years I have spent visiting practically every nook and corner of the Indian country, I have seen ample illustrations of the viewpoints you so obviously intended to convey. Such certainly are not hard to find, and I have repeatedly reviewed many of these most discouraging factors you portrayed, but for the sake of honesty and fairness I have always attempted to match such with many of the positive and encouraging factors so easily seen if one but dare look. I have been content in doing so, thus leaving my audience to draw its own conclusions. I feel also, in so doing, I am not running the risk of offending the thousands of Indian people who in no way resemble those whom you chose to portray, but who have made great strides toward a happy solution to their problems. [italics added] Yet Carter challenged McCormick:

273 Why did you so pointedly fail to portray some of the outstanding work being done in the field of Indian Health by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare? Or the encouraging record set by the BIA in the field of education? These are questions which have already been directed at me by concerned individuals following yesterday's program, and will no doubt again be asked me as we convene in Annual Assembly of the Division of Home Missions in Atlantic City in December. I can be much more fair to you in answering such inquiries if you would kindly share with me you thoughts on the foregoing matters. Thank you. 73 The second letter from Board members of this organization is a thoughtful critique of the documentary: The Indian Committee of the National Council of Churches is most grateful to the National Broadcasting Company for making available to them the Kinescope of your Kaleidoscope television program, The American Stranger. We greatly appreciate the interest, time, skills and money that so evidently went into the production of The American Stranger. We are grateful for the public concern the film has developed. We especially appreciate the realistic approach of the film in presenting Indians as people rather than Hollywood characters. The committee members continued: The film points out some of the important problem areas, especially the interpretation and implementation of government land policy. At the same time, the film leaves much unsaid about the positive aspects of the government programs particularly in the areas of health and education. It omits also the importance of the responsibilities of the Indian people themselves. Thus the committee both agrees and disagrees with the viewpoint presented in The American Stranger. The Committee thanks you for producing this program and hopes that it will be followed by others portraying other aspects of the life and situation of the Indian people. Should you wish to consult with this committee or any of its members we should be most happy to arrange a meeting. 74

Native American Response

274 In addition to the letters of validation that NBC received from non-Indian experts with first-hand experience, the network also received a significant number of responses from individuals identifying themselves as American Indian and from tribal groups. Although the broadcast reflected the perspectives of Blackfeet tribal leaders addressing contestatory aspects of their particular tribal relationship to the federal government, McCormicks extensive interviews with leaders of numerous tribes had led him to understand that the perspectives were shared by most other tribal groups, though their particular situations might vary from tribe to tribe. McCormicks generalizations were also supported by the positions of the national all-Indian political advocacy group (the NCAI) and the pro-Indian interest groups such as the AAIA. In 1953, the AAIA had requested statements regarding the impending termination (then called withdrawal) from all tribes; the responses to that survey are published in the Appendix under Tribal Perspectives on Termination. McCormick received a number of letters from individuals identifying themselves as tribally-affiliated or of Indian descent, such as this one from a former tribal council member of the Wind River Shoshone Tribe: This is written to tell you how very interesting and informative I found your program today on N.B.C. Kaleidoscope: The American Stranger featuring the American Indian. I know you have presented a true picture of the Indian and "Termination." I know this because I am an enrolled Shoshone from the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming. I served almost 8 years on the Tribal Council there and therefore Indian problems are very familiar to me. I believe that the Indian himself should be alerted to the Indian Bureaus method of termination and therefore I was wondering if your film would be available to Indians everywhere [who] should see this film.

275 Although I am not now active in tribal affairs I am still interested in ways and means that advance the Indians. I was not able to make a living on the reservation and gainful employment of any kind was hard to come by, so I came to Albuquerque and am now employed as a draftsman for a firm of consulting engineers. I thank you for a wonderfully done and presented television show. [italics added] 75 An Indian family who were also employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs wrote: We hope this card gets to you personally, for your opinion expresses the thoughts of thousands of Indian people thru-out the country. We are a Bureau employed family, and have experienced the various reactions as you have presented. We are 100 Indian in blood and thought. Would like to hear from you. 76 A letter from Wisconsin provided very poetic and poignant insights into the worldview of a particular Chippewa viewer, Ed LaPlante, a member of the NCAI. He spoke of his struggle to decide whether to speak for a real American Indian, and decided finally to speak for those members of his tribe who lacked an articulate voice in national public discourse. His letter began: It is going to be awfully hard for me to say clearly what I want to say. And while I think somebody should say something for a real American Indian, it would remind me of advice I received during our State Centennial in 1948 when I was on an Indian Sub-Committee and a President of a Corporation said, remember, Silence is Golden. Right now its 1:30 AM, I still want to say something for those who are so inarticulate and so unknown. The wind that is howling at my bedroom window tells me of my own Chippewa people, it seems to bring a memory of that particular band in Northeastern Minnesota where I was born, and who were so kind to me. I remember the fresh, clean Lake Superior water that washed on the long sanded bay; as I walked along the trail on a soft bank of rich black soil and high grass, I remember again in the moonlite the rabbits played. LaPlante continued, eloquently: That wind on my bedroom window seems to be saying America is heading for some real trying times; some of this because we keep on mis-using our God-given Natural Resources of forests, woods,

276 swamps, marshes, lakes, streams, brooks, rapids, waterfalls, rock formations, valleys, each of these things playing a great part in protection of wildlife and fish--these were the sustenance of food and life of the Chippewas. Again that wind seems to tell me, the American people, the white people, and the Christian people, the leading people, must reconsider the use of our God-given Natural Resources so essential to life. These same people must or should reconsider their treatment to the real American Indian, and He thats been so reserved and silent but was it Golden? It is now 2 AM and its time for me to say in a few words what should have been said--just Thank You on behalf of my American Indian Race. May they ever be a part of Americas Democracy. 77 McCormick also received a letter from an NBC stagehand who was raised in an Indian family: Allow me to congratulate you on your fearless presentation of the cause of the American Indian on the telecast a couple of weeks ago. Those who saw it were shocked that such conditions could exist in todays United States nor did we who know of reservation conditions ever hope to find a man or a company with moral courage enough to state these facts that are so difficult to prove because of the Indians fear of anything labeled Washington. This viewer continued: I stated this to two friends of yours with whom I work . . . [and] strangely enough they both said practically the same thing: That must have made Bob mad for when he gets mad he really speaks up. Thank God you got mad for we believe you did a great service, in a good cause. . . . I am an adopted member of the Hunkpati Sioux, Crow Creek Reservation, Ft. Thompson, South Dakota. My immediate family (by my adoption) is or are descendants of the great chief Sitting Bull . . . I am certain that if Tatanka Yotanka Sitting Bull were here he would send you a message of thanks and I like to think that from where he is in the Happy Hunting Grounds that he is smiling His approval of your action, as I do for him. [italics added] 78 A letter to the AAIA from Blackfeet tribal administrator Meade Swingley, who was interviewed in the documentary but who had not yet seen it, underscores the

277 differences between absolute facticity, upon which the government was making its case, and the emotional truth or verisimilitude of the presentation of an Indian perspective: We just got the "trash" that the Bureau issued as their rebuttal of the evidence presented in The American Stranger. We haven't heard the play-back of the program, but we actually believe we were misquoted. We're holding any comments until we get the official script or actually hear the dialogue. However, this is a technicality. Everything said was true. The Bureau's attitude seems to be that of a mother bird fighting for her nest, while the wolves eat up the baby birds un-noticed. [italics added] 79 Even some local Indian Bureau employees who were tribal members supported the "truth" of the documentary's claims: a handwritten note to Blackfeet Tribal Chairman Walter Wetzel on the bottom of a BIA memo about The American Stranger said, "Saw this presentation on NBC last nite and surely enjoyed it. I must say you and Iliff are sure photogenic. The story was good and factual. Sincerely, Ernestine." 80 Father Byrne received a letter from a California woman who was a member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe: This past Sunday evening I had the good fortune to see on television a documentary on the Indian. In the series you were shown and gave voice to your views regarding termination of the Indian. Hurrah! And thank you. I am of the Flathead Tribe, born and raised in St. Ignatius, so naturally am interested in our Indian welfare. Luckily, about four years ago, I had the presence of mind to vote against termination and the sale of my allotment. For a man of God, as you are, to speak in favor of the Indian makes one feel that all is not lost. I have lived and earned my living off the reservation for the past thirty years, returning to visit intermittently. Some day I hope to return permanently. Again, thank you for your voice in our favor. 81

278 A number of the letters sent to McCormick in response to the documentary were also from individuals claiming Indian descent but who were not residing in tribal communities: members of what might be called the Native American diaspora. One viewer/writer, of Cherokee descent, published a Vancouver-based magazine or newsletter reflecting her tribal heritage: Thank you very much for a great program on the First Americans. Your information should enlighten the people to the necessity for doing something to help our Indians. Our proud people have been brought low. Few of our leaders have been able to make themselves heard in the halls of government. Too long our Indians have been portrayed in stories, pictures and entertainment screens as mockish and savage . . . whose only thought was to scalp, when over the years they have been systematically scalped of their home land, and even today thousands of acres are disappearing yearly into white hands. By sowing seeds of suspicion among the Indian Tribes, the white man has destroyed their loyalty, and had them fighting to exterminate each other; they are still afraid. What you told us is true, and much more. We need men . . . the descendants of our great statesmen, orators and leaders to assert their leadership. But grasping men in high places have cunningly tried to crush out all initiative in a defenseless people, even making them distrust each other, to serve their own greedy purpose. 82 Several of the viewers who wrote to McCormick were involved in organizations that apparently functioned as social and political organizations for these diasporic Indians. One letter from a New York-based member of the Indian League of the Americas, Ralph Allen, arrived at NBC immediately following the broadcast: On behalf of our Indian organization, I compliment you and N.B.C. for last Sundays Kaleidoscope TV program titled aptly The American Stranger. The program rendered a distinct service for the American Indian. It brought forth to the public the present status of the Indian, and made cognizant the conditions which prevail on various tribal reservations today. Would it be possible to repeat the program again in the near future? The program can go far toward helping the Indian to his rightful position by our birth right, as first American. We are still

279 here and we are not here empty-handed. We are surely setting ourselves in a line of conduct for representation in every honorable avocation to which American citizens may aspire; so that the Indian may attain to the ideal of true American citizenship. 83 Members of another diasporic group, the League of North American Indians, were scattered around the country, but wrote prolifically, presenting themselves as representatives of all Indians. Their letterhead listed Board members and tribal affiliations, though no headquarters site. The Kansas-based secretary of the League of North American Indians, Frank Tom-Pee-Saw, wrote to Lee Metcalf to provide him with information on other situations in which Indian tribes were being oppressed by the machinations of the government. His letter implicitly acknowledges the truths of the NBC broadcast, and reinforces them with additional supporting evidence from another detailed example: As of November 16, 1958 I watched on TV the Program relating to the Crow [sic] Indians of Montana. It was a sad story indeed, but if you actually knew what is being done to the UTE INDIANS of the State of Utah you would really become alarmed. One of the biggest steals of Indian funds is now taking place and has been going on for the past four years. It is much worse than the TEA-POT-DOME oil Scandle [sic]. This writer provided Metcalf with a detailed and lengthy account of how the Ute Tribe had won court judgement in 1950 for $31 million; yet unless illegal spending was stopped, this writer warned, the original judgement would be dissipated by 1962. To Metcalf, Tom-Pee-Saw plead: We need your help badly. 84 Another member of the League of North American Indians, the editor of its publication Indian Views who went by the single name of Craig and declared himself a Mohawk, wrote McCormick one of the most radical letters he received in

280 response to the broadcast of his documentary. The following letter also specifically enunciated the struggle over truth that was embodied in the documentary itself. He wrote in response to a Phoenix article that was apparently about Goldwaters uproar over the broadcast: I saw the last half of your world-shaking TV program about Indians and was glad to see you exposing enough truth to attract the anger of The Enemy. If this Dec. 8th Phoenix Gazette article beside me is a typical example of that anger, it appears that you may be getting the full treatment. Therefore I write to you at this time to thank you sincerely for risking your reputation, your career, your very livelihood, in defending us by exposing The Enemy. I also write to offer my assistance because I know this Enemy, and I know that His weapons may be so new and strange to you that help may be needed if you continue to stand up against Him. Craig continued: By this time the reactions to your program are at hand and you have decided to either STAND UP, or SURRENDER. If your decision is to STAND UP, you might like to know that there are a few people who are offering to stand up with you--people who are reliable because they have been thoroughly tried and tested. If, However, your decision is to SURRENDER, then I want to say that I understand your position and sympathize with you--the pressures ARE terribly great--and thank you for going with us as far as you did go. Your Big Step was truly a great help. The activist writer provided some advice to McCormick: Having briefly mentioned some past and present aspects of your program, I now look to the future: If you have decided to continue openly presenting the truth about Indians today, then the enclosed copies of letters to various officials may interest you because they present useful facts and because they reveal one of the ways that some of us are working at this time. If, on the other hand, you have decided to surrender or to go underground, I wish you would tell me the names and addresses of those people who indicated sympathy with your Indian program AND those who volunteered to help you continue the work. I do not want the seeds of truth and justice and righteousness you planted on November 16th to lay idle, or perish for lack of nourishment or cultivation.

281 In a letter to the Phoenix Gazette, Craig also wrote: Im sure that of the 100's of thousands who saw that [television] program, the thinking people will always remember the vivid scenes of billionaire machinery pumping stolen oil from under the lands of poor, starving, illiterate, kind-hearted old men with braided hair and ten gallon hats. These people will therefore remember that the issue of Mr. McCormicks narration was GENOCIDE and robbery and criminal neglect unto murder. . . . He attacked Senator Barry Goldwaters paternalistic, colonialistic words (. . .our tribes. . .) in the Phoenix newspapers December 8 interview providing Goldwaters response to the broadcast of The American Stranger. Craigs letters turned up throughout the various archives I searched, and his radical language and discursive strategies prefigure the militant strategies that movements like the American Indian Movement (AIM) would take up a decade later, and which are still reflected in the writings of radical scholars such as Ward Churchill and Annette Jaimes. 85 In another intriguing letter, Navajo John Yazzie wrote McCormick at length outlining many political irregularities on the Navajo reservation: Hundreds of Navajos, even including many who voted for Chairman Paul Jones, have told me to inform you there there will be violence at Window Rock--Navajo Tribal Headquarters--unless a thorough impartial investigation is made by the Federal Government. Yazzie asserted that the current tribal council was only a puppet government controlled by the tribal attorney in Washington, D.C. (a close friend of Glenn Emmons), and described many questionable actions and repressions by this council. Most interestingly, Yazzie also discussed the pressures put on journalists who had tried to expose the tribal problems:

282 It seems that [the tribal attorney] and his henchmen do not want any criticism or publicity about their methods of operating. For example, when the Roman Catholic Church printed a couple of harmless true editorials in their church magazine, [the tribal attorney] threatened to run them and their missionaries off the Navajo Reservation. . . . Likewise, a TV disc jockey--Don Sherwood of San Francisco, who was trying to give a true picture of the hunger and poverty existing among Navajo people--was forced to leave his job by coercion of the Tribal legal Department and officials of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. . . . How do 85,000 people go about obtaining a fair and impartial investigation of their corrupt government and wasting of their money, when the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department of the Interior and Congressmen on the Indian Affairs Subcommittee have turned a deaf ear to our pleas? 86 McCormick became the lightning rod for some tribes, the hope that he could use his access to the public to open still more doors for groups who had long felt voiceless and powerless. McCormick and NBC received one of their handful of negative letters from a pro-terminationist, non-reservation Indian. The fact that this factionalization existed within the Indian community was minimalized in the documentary, as well as most public discourses about American Indian politics during this period. This writer, L. M. Longwood of Washington State, represented the voices of many of the assimilated tribal members who lived outside the reservation community and who desired termination since it represented the liquidation and per-capita distribution of tribal assets to all tribal members. This writer presents some alternative Indian truths to those provided by any of the Indian or non-Indian speakers in the documentary, truths that were in direct opposition to those of many of the tribal leaders: You had a program on this week called The American Stranger: a picture of the American Indian. I am a member of the Committee for Freedom, a group dedicated to the liquidation of the reservations.

283 There are also two other organizations on this Colville Reservation both of which exist only to get rid of the Indian Bureau. Longwood presented one perspective of an assimilated Indian: Most of the material given on your program was not factual. The majority of Indians in the north want only one thing--full and complete integration and freedom from the throttling hand of the Indian Bureau. We feel very strongly that we should have equal time to refute the congressman you had and the Priest. He might (repeat might) speak for a majority of the Blackfeet--but I doubt it. Most Indians are landless because the policy of the Indian Bureau was to drive those off the reservations on order to make a living. So--getting jobs off the Res, they took roots, established families and bought homes. As the years continued these roots became permanent and the older Indians--parents of those who left the Res died off. Longwood continued: Then the Indian Bureau took to the heirs--it was tribal land. This gave them the acquired right to base growing rights, animal rights and to harvest the timber. All a calculated scheme to get and handle monies which rightfully belong to the heirs. After fifty years of this sort of thing, is it any wonder the Indians want liquidation. We are not unjust. If a group--and there are some oldsters who might--want to stay on the Res to die, we would set aside a fair part for them. But the rest should be liquidated and the landless majority given either land in fee or the proceeds of the sale of the Res. If you are fair you will give the true picture of the Real Northwest Indian situation. [According to a recent article by Kathleen Dahl, the Colville Confederated Tribes ultimately escaped termination, despite a lenthy internal and external ordeal which included extreme factionalization within the tribe between those categorized as traditional and anti-termination and those self-classified as modern and pro-liquidation. As Dahl demonstrates, these differences epitomized strongly divergent concepts of what twentieth century Indianness might mean.] 87 In addition to letters from individuals, many tribal groups expressed their support for The American Stranger through public statements and press releases.

284 Flooded with letters from sympathetic viewers who had been moved by the television show, Iliff McKay of the Blackfeet Tribe composed a standard letter that he sent to the scores of concerned Americans who contacted the Tribe. The purpose of his letter was, as he wrote to McCormick, to counteract some of the propaganda the Indian Bureau is circulating locally in the wake of the T.V. program. I include his letter in full, as it is one of the most significant statements in the volleying of statements and counter-statements, true facts and counter-facts, truths and countertruths that circulated around the United States in the months following the broadcast of The American Stranger. McKay wrote: Never, in recent years, has any one incident aroused so much interest in the plight of the American Indian as has the TV program The American Stranger televised nation-wide by NBC on November 16. Many people, their indignation fired to think that such conditions as those on Indian reservations as portrayed by the program could exist in this land of plenty, have asked members of Congress and the U. S. Government for a full report of the situation. Many others, full of sympathy for a once proud and independent race, have offered material assistance. But these people are not familiar with Federal government-Indian relations and in an attempt to get the correct address of the Indians in whom they're interested, they address an inquiry to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The enclosed copy of a letter dated November 25, 1958 is an example of how such requests for information are handled. It is not to the country's benefit, I believe, that the Bureau of Indian Affairs seems to feel the responsibility rests with them for suppressing the interest of the

285 American public kindled by the TV program. If the enclosed letter is a part of the pattern to be followed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in responding to this public interest, then surely only continued confusion and resultant apathy must follow. For on the one hand, in the enclosed letters the Bureau of Indian Affairs lists the programs being operated by the Government ostensibly for the benefit of Indians--there is hardly a field in which a program is not being operated, according to the letter--and on the other hand the Bureau states that it does not wish to imply that there are no unmet needs among the Blackfeet Indians. The facts are that Congress appropriates money each year for the operation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and for programs operated by the Bureau. These appropriations are then subdivided among the various area offices of the Bureau. The area offices, in turn, allocate funds to each agency maintained on various reservations. The fact cannot be disputed that the large majority of these funds are used for administrative salaries with very little of the money filtering through to the Indians. With few exceptions, none of the money is used to clothe hungry children or feed hungry families. This should be a matter of vital concern to each citizen, as well as to each Congressman, as the money appropriated is a part of the cost of running our government and originates with the tax-payer. I would suggest that interested people ask the Bureau of Indian Affairs not only how much money is being spent for programs operated for the benefit of Indians, but also how much of this is spent for salaries, rent, and other expenses of administrative officers responsible for each program.

286 The Bureau of Indian Affairs may have a general assistance program. We on the Blackfeet Reservation do not get any general assistance from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. There are approximately 4900 Indians living on the Blackfeet reservation. About 2500 of these people are on general assistance each year. Last year we were able to spend $50,000.00 of our own money on our general assistance program. This is an average of $20.00 for each person requiring aid. As this program is maintained for an average of 18 weeks each winter, this means that each person will receive, as they did last year, less than $1.15 per week under this program. A family of 5 will get a little more, about $7.50 per week. But this is the best we can do with our own funds. The Indian Bureau does nothing. The Bureau of Indian Affairs says that $38,000.00 for the branch of welfare was apportioned for the Blackfeet Indian Agency last year. When asked if and how this money was spent, they replied as follows: In Fiscal 1958 the Branch of Welfare at Blackfeet (reservation) was apportioned $38,000,00 for salaries, operating expanses, and child welfare services (mainly boarding home care). As you know, there was a savings because the Social Worker resigned in January, 1958 and it was not possible to fill the position. This type of answer to a sincere request for information speaks for itself. In the enclosed letter [see below], the Indian Bureau says that programs to improve the living standards of Indians or promote greater family stability is welcomed by them. But why haven't they initiated such programs themselves? They also say such programs should be undertaken after en objective review of the most pressing unmet needs so as to avoid duplication and to assure the most effective

287 use of funds. More double-talk. If there is to be a program to meet an unmet need, what can it duplicate? And who is to make this so-called "objective review"? Surely not the Indian Bureau for they have had more than one hundred years to review. Now it's time for these past one hundred years of Indian administration to be reviewed. By all means write the Indian Bureau. Don't forget, through your taxes you are paying the bill for their administration. Ask them how much of your tax money is being spent on administration and how much goes directly to needy people. Any government or its bureaus should welcome constructive criticism and comment of the kind contained in the NBC-TV program, The American Stranger. No injustice has been done to Indians, as an Assistant Secretary of the Interior claimed when he asked for equal TV time recently to present (their) side of the story. The only hurt Indians might have suffered through the program is to our pride. We do not like to admit that we are poor to the verge of starvation. We do not like to admit we send our children to school barely clothed in order that they may get one good meal a day. We do not like to admit that we hate to part with our land in order to live a few more years, for land has been a part of our religion and you do not sell a part of your church for food. But these facts are with us, and they will stay with us until the American public, each of you, demands they be changed. 88 As an enclosure with the letter, McKay also sent a copy of the form letter sent out by Reinhold Brust, Assistant Area Director of the Billings Area Office of the BIA to all those who wrote the BIA in response to the TV program, and which McKay

288 critiqued in his letter. The Brust letter, representing the perspective of the local BIA, is also included in full: Thank you for your letter of November 18, 1958 offering to send clothing for children of the Blackfeet Schools. We appreciate your interest in Indians and are glad to have the opportunity to comment on the needs of the Blackfeet Indians and to tell you something of the Bureau programs. There are a number of federal programs maintained for the benefit of the Blackfeet Indians in Montana in which we know you will be interested. Among the programs maintained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on Indian reservations, including the Blackfeet Reservation, are those to aid in developing the natural resources, such as land management, ranching, irrigation, forestry, etc., as well as others to provide educational opportunities, law and order, relocation services to cities where jobs are available, and welfare services. Whenever possible Indian children attend public schools. On the Blackfeet Reservation most children attend the public schools, and a dormitory is maintained at Browning for Indian students who live at a distance from the day public school. In addition, Blackfeet students who meet eligibility requirements may enter high school and post high school trade courses at Haskell Institute, a Bureau School offering vocational training in a variety of trades. The Bureau cooperates with the State of Montana by extending assistance to public school districts enrolling Indian children residing on tax exempt Indian lands, including those on the Blackfeet reservation. Under the Bureau's Welfare programs, family welfare services and child welfare services are provided, as well as a general assistance program for needy

289 families not eligible for public assistance under the Social Security Act. On the Blackfeet Reservation, the tribal council, in cooperation with the county welfare departments, have operated their own tribally financed general assistance program. This has been a program mutually successful and satisfactory to the counties and the tribal group. General assistance is issued by check to provide food, clothing, fuel, and other subsistence items. In a cooperative effort between the counties and the tribe, surplus commodities from the Dept. Of Agriculture are also provided as supplementary items to persons in need. Indians eligible for public assistance receive old age assistance, aid to dependent children, aid to the blind, or aid to the permanently and totally disabled from their county departments of public welfare to meet their needs. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1958, more than $50,000 was made available through tribal funds alone on this reservation. Approximately $38,000 was made available for the Bureau's welfare program. This, of course, was in addition to the assistance given under the Social Security Act through the State agencies, and also does not include the amount received from other sources such as the Surplus Commodity Program. The health program is now under the Department of Health, Education and Welfare as a part of the Public Health Service. Current information can be obtained from that department which will report on medical care provided in the hospitals and clinics maintained on reservations, including the Blackfeet, as well as the services of dentists, medical social workers, public health nurses, sanitarians, and health educators.

290 We do not wish to imply that there are no unmet needs among the Blackfeet Indians. Government programs have their limitations, and any supplementary program which will improve the living standards of the Indians or promote greater family stability is welcomed by us. Such programs should be undertaken after an objective review of the most pressing unmet needs so as to avoid duplication and to assure the most effective use of funds. We suggest that in the event the Service Organizations of Casper send donations of clothing these could be sent in care of Mr. Walter Wetzel, Chairman, Blackfeet Tribal Council, and would be distributed by tribal authorities. Again, we thank you for your interest in the welfare of the Indians and assure you of the continuance of the Bureau's programs for their benefit as long as needed. 89

In early November, a little more than a week prior to the broadcast of The American Stranger, Sister Providencia had received a letter from Mrs. Annie Doare, a traditional older Blackfeet tribal member living on the reservation, who plead for the nuns help for herself and other members of her tribe: Sister, would it be too much of a problem in asking if you could provide my family with some used clothes? The last time as you know we truly indeed made use of the clothes give by you. I would like if possible a coat for myself. On behalf of my people here in Browning, Sister, Id like you to know the tribe is starving all of us, in fact they promised a larger amount of per-capital to the people before the arrival of Christmas and God himself knows how we are ever going to stand the

291 coming winter. We all pray hopefully the good Lord will work out something for us all. . . . 90 Doares letter reflects the economic conditions on the Blackfeet reservation, which were worsening that fall due to the extreme weather and the combination of economic and political factors during the recession of 1957-1959 which left the Tribe (a political entity as well as a business corporation in which all tribal members are shareholders) with little cash flow to support the subsistence needs of its nearly 5000 members. The income for most Tribal members was meager, consisting mostly of income from leased trust land, casual labor, and participation in Tribal programs operated with Tribal income. If and when the tribal business income (for example, from oil leases) should exceed operating expenses, the council was pressured by its members to distribute a per-capita payment to all members. This led to a constant deferment of long-range programs in order to provide for the immediate needs of tribal members. However, the elected tribal councils powers for political and economic action were limited by law, and expenditures above an established amount were subject to the review or approval of the federal Interior Department. As McFee has explained, When individual and tribal earnings fell off, the demand for welfare funds increased. The council contributed the greatest share to the county welfare program, so the relief the people received was yet another drain upon tribal income. Tribal self-government suffered under these pressures. It was difficult to get a majority of the tribe to support any political or economic measure. The council, itself split on issues, despaired of tribal unity. 91

292 Several major changes in the Blackfeet situation had occurred between the broadcast in mid-November and the end of the 1958 year. First, the Interior Department had received a legal determination that the BIA could receive surplus government clothing, which could in turn be distributed to tribes as needed. Secondly, on December 10 sealed bids were opened for oil and gas leases on tribal lands, and the bonus payments of $1,600,000 to the tribe resulted in per capita distributions to each tribal member. When McKay consulted tribal attorney Arthur Lazarus about the content ot the letter (above) to be distributed nationally, Lazarus contributed the following insights: In the first place, I feel that your attempts to combat Indian Bureau propaganda are indeed a worthwhile project. As you know, the Bureau is flooding the country with long and short brochures purporting to show that Bob McCormick is all wet, and a few items in circulation to the opposite effect can only do good. Indeed, my major criticism of your letter is that it is too gentle. I think you would be well within the facts, for example, to score the Bureau for its references to the distribution of surplus commodities from the Department of Agriculture. True, these commodities are being distributed, but the record shows quite clearly that the Bureau did everything in its power to block such distribution. Now that the program is a fait accompli, the Area Director writes as if it were his brain-child. Lazarus continued: The information that the general assistance program is "mutually successful and satisfactory to the counties and the tribal group" is pure hogwash. I cannot remember a year in which some difficulty has not arisen--generally a lack of necessary funds. When Mr. Brust says that "more than $50,000 was made available through tribal funds alone," he implies that something else was thrown into the pot, but as you point out, the Bureau added nothing to this total. Otherwise, I think you have done an excellent Job. P.S. It has been suggested that you inform Robert McCormick of NBC about the oil and gas sale, so that if he so desires he may do a follow-up. The fear is

293 that the Bureau otherwise will seize upon the $1,600,000 as proof that the Blackfeet are not at all in need. 92 At a special meeting of the Blackfeet Tribal Council in early December of 1958, council members discussed the overwhelming response to the television documentary they had received, although at that time few of them had actually seen the broadcast. They began working on arrangements for NBC to ship a kinescope to television station CJLH-TV in Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, so that tribal members might get to see the film themselves; they were also trying to arrange for a local projection of the kinescope for the residents of Heart Butte and at a council meeting. According to the minutes, McKay felt that the visible evidence provided by the medium of documentary film could prove the truths known by his tribespeople: Mr. McKay commented that the filming of this show was real accomplishment as far as Indian people were concerned. He said he did not see how anyone could take exception to the material shown as they were actual camera shots of the material involved. He went on to say that the showing of this film had brought to light a very serious problem which exists in this country and one which most people knew vet little about until this program was carried. Mr. McKay concluded by saying that he felt this program did more for Indian people than any single act since Indians and non-Indians made peace and pledged to live together and assist each other. [italics added] At this meeting, the Blackfeet Tribal Council passed a Resolution commending the NBC network for its production and broadcast of the documentary: WHEREAS: For many years the Indian people of the United States have attempted to bring conditions on their reservations to the attention of the American public in the firm belief that this would result in a realistic approach to Federal-Indian relations; and WHEREAS: As if in answer to our many prayers, NBC-TV assigned one of its top journalists the job of visiting Indian reservations and reporting conditions among Indian people, now

294 THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Blackfeet Tribal Business Council does hereby commend the National Broadcasting Company for the courage and determination displayed in the filming of The American Stranger, and for its sincere desire to bring to light true pictures of contemporary life of all segments of our American society, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Blackfeet Tribal Business Council does hereby commend Robert McCormick and the employees of NBC-TV who, we feel, presented a factual and objective picture of the American Indians of today--truly Americas Strangers. THE BLACKFEET TRIBE OF THE BLACKFEET INDIAN RESERVATION Walter Wetzel, Chairman G.G. Kipp, Vice-Chairman Iliff McKay, Secretary 93 Another Montana tribal leader, Walter W. McDonald, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribal Chairman and President of the Montana Inter-Tribal Policy Board (consisting of delegates from the seven tribes and the landless Indians of Montana) issued a press release that challenged the statements made by the Interior Department and the Bureau of Indian Affairs that attempted to discredit the NBC documentary. McDonald also believed in the power of the filmic image to prove without dispute the veracity of the Indian truths: The NBC television program The American Stranger, on Kaleidoscope, was an objective reporting job that brought out the failure of the present policies of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau points to its achievements in education and welfare of the Indians. Those achievements [were] brought out by the program and have been recognized by the Montana Inter-Tribal Policy Board. But, a claim that some Indian children are in school and some of our Indian people are being cared for in hospitals, cannot erase the pictures of crippled Indian children and destitute Indian people. Actually, the show avoided some of the horrible examples that might have seemed too extreme. Mr. McCormick, the narrator, concluded that the Bureaus land policies were calculated to drive the Indians from the reservations and to

295 terminate the federal responsibility for the Indians, without their consent, and before the Indians were ready for it. This has been the contention of the Flathead Tribal Council and the Montana Inter-Tribal Policy Board at all times. The NBC television show speaks for itself, the pictures bear out our conclusions and that of the reporter. NBC and its staff have made a fine contribution in bringing to the people of the United States a forthright and honest presentation of an American problem that is too often overlooked. 94 McDonald, one of the most outspoken and prolific tribal leaders in the struggles against termination, also edited his tribes publication, Char-Koosta, in which he published an editorial about the NBC broadcast that is excerpted here. His essay provides some additional truths, from the perspective of his tribal position, about the issues debated in the exchange between NBC and the U.S. Interior Department: The Kaleidoscope television program of Nov. 16, The American Stranger, has caused much concern by Indians and non-Indians alike. It is true the two reservations involved in the picture, the Flathead and the Blackfeet, are two different reservations especially as to social standards. . . . Your writer would like to elaborate on the land policies on Indian Reservations taken from [the] Bureau of Indian Affairs statement. [quoting the True Facts Statement] To improve the Indians chances for making an adequate living, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is carrying on a wide variety of activities. One of the main goals is to develop the reservation lands as fully as possible for the benefit of those who wish to make a living from the lands. Toward this end, new irrigation systems are being constructed and others are being improved. Up to date ways of saving soil and water are being spread across the farm and range lands on the reservation. Roads are being improved and new ones built so traffic will flow more readily to and from formerly isolated areas of Indian Country.

296 There may be activities to improve and develop land, McDonald continued, but let's not kid ourselves: the Indian of today is having a harder time keeping his land in trust in comparison to 15 years ago. Those were the days when one must have a legitimate reason for getting a patent. Today we see the new policy in this respect. If a member of the Tribe wishes to give a piece of trust land to a relative or another member as a gift this cannot be done if the receiver is judged competent, unless the receiver takes it in fee status. Another case is when fee land is purchased by the Tribe or a member of the Tribe the land must remain in fee status. Of course individual transactions are somewhat different. Maybe the Indian would be better off to have their land in fee status, especially if it is timbered land; therefore there would be no restrictions on the management of his or her own timber. However, Tribal land is in a different category. In the Constitution-By Laws and Reorganization Act of this tribe specifically brings out our law that tribal funds may be used to purchase fee lands providing the lands be put in trust. The Bureau of Indian Affairs will not confirm this nor will the Bureau of Indian Affairs give any assistance in trying to get this land in trust. . . . [italics added] McDonald continued with more rebuttals of the Interior Departments True Facts Statement: The Northern Cheyenne Tribe of Lame Deer, Montana made national recognition last year because of the fact the Tribal Council sold their steer herd out, in order that they may purchase some key tracts of grazing land in the middle of their range and believe me, the Cheyennes have one of the best grazing areas in the country. Despite the fact that the Cheyennes would meet the high bid of the appraisal price, their monies were not released in time, and no delay in the land

297 sale was recommended. This meant the Cheyennes lost a vast resource of water holes plus an ill feeling toward the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Your writer brings out these facts and our readers may take it for what it is worth. . . . On the other hand in the Bureau of Indian Affairs' 31 page release . . . there is a move to construct new irrigation systems. Let's hope that the irrigation system does not work a hardship on the landowners like we have witnessed on the Flathead. In many cases water isn't used on allotment in some cases turn out's are not appropriate: but in the meantime the water charges still go on chargeable to the owner. In some cases our Fullblood Indians were so uninformed of back water charges until later years, they were shocked to know their land was found to be in delinquent O & M status. Some of our people did not even realize that if they did not use the water they would have to pay for it. Some did not want irrigation in the first place. . . . Many of the Indian people and non-Indian people appreciated the fact that Robert McCormick (NBC) came out in our state and made the picture of the Flathead and principally the Blackfeet Reservation. The Bureau of Indian Affairs in their 31 page rebuttal has merits also; but we old boys who have lived with the Indian question also have some comments. It is true since the U. S. Public Health Service has taken over Indian Health from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the program has advanced a long way in the last two years, we have a fine example of Public Health on the Flathead; [however], there probably is no one Indian on the Reservation who would say the old Bureau of Indian Affairs days were the best.

298 The old timers tell about one of the Bureau of Indian Affairs field nurses making the statement one can't give the Indians castor oil in a bottle to take home as they will grease their buggies with it and if you give them aspirin they will use the pills to get drunk on! The only hold-back in our health program of today is there is danger of being cut on our appropriations. Last year the sanitation bill was killed in the House the last days of Congress. Anybody who is interested in our health program should contact our Congressional delegation. There is a need for support in this coming session of Congress and only the Indians themselves and interested people may have the influence to plead for these appropriations. McDonalds column continued: There is another subject in the recent Bureau of Indian Affairs release pertaining to the loaning program that has significance. The recent TV program brought out that. [quoting McCormick]Now, they have a loan program for loaning those Tribal funds to Indians to build up their herds or to build their homes--and the Bureau will withhold the Tribes own funds and their credit facilities--or surround them with so much red tape that you can't get a loan in time.The Bureau of Indian Affairs' comment is the statement entirely without foundation. . . . Your writer's comment on the loan fund in the Credit Department, D. C., is that more money could have been loaned if the Bureau of Indian Affairs wanted to get the money out. Even in the Flathead there is need for more money. On the other hand back in 1952 the Flathead Tribal Credit program was shut down because of poor management. In the meantime our records showed less than seven per cent delinquency. One of our local bankers informed us seven per cent is a good record. The main reason we feel our Credit was cut off, and mind you, we

299 use our own Tribal funds, was it was a plan of liquidation of the Flathead Reservation. It took us about four years to get our Credit back with certain restrictions, etc., but we are back in business again. McDonald concluded, There are two sides to every question and many people have long expressed their views, from all walks of life. . . . [italics added] 95 On December 5, the NCAI issued a national press release immediately following the release of the Interior Department True Facts Statement. This announced the Indian organizations citation of McCormick for courageous interpretive reporting on current Indian issues as well as the organizations plan to nominate The American Stranger for a Peabody Award. The release quoted President Joseph Garry as saying, I have consulted with our executive committee, representing Indian tribes in all parts of the country, and they feel Mr. McCormick showed the American public a side of the Indian picture it has not seen. He went into Indian homes, schools, council chambers and sick rooms in search of truth. He found it. The NCAI also praised NBC for allowing McCormick to operate freely in an area where facts often have been obscured by propaganda and misinformation. In a letter the same week to officers of the Omaha Tribal Council, NCAI Director Helen Peterson commented about the response following the documentarys broadcast: Last week, the Interior Department issued a 31-page mimeographed statement on the program, highly critical, and asked for equal time. By last Friday, newspaper reporters, wire services, and Newsweek were asking this organization for comment as to what Indians thought of the program. . . .

300 Members of the . . .NCAI executive committee felt NCAI should support NBC, Mr. McCormick, and the program in all ways possible for frankly reporting on what they saw. . . . If the Omaha Tribe wishes to give backing to NBC and this reporter who attempted to deal with Indian issues frankly and courageously, it could pass tribal resolutions so stating. . . and also endorse nomination for the Peabody Award. It was the feeling of several of us that only when there is full coverage of Indian problems and issues, by radio, television, magazines and newspapers, and effective support of the Indians position will there be significance or lasting change in policy or legislation and assistance to the various tribes singly or collectively. That seemed to be the unanimously view of the NCAI officials polled. [italics added] 96 NBC and McCormick also received resolutions from the Omaha Tribe and the Coeur dAlene tribe, whose resoution read: : WHEREAS the Coeur dAlene Tribe has been deeply concerned over the present policy of the BIA particularly as to sales of allotted trust lands on the Coeur dAlene Reservation and other allotted reservations, and it has been the feeling of the Couer dAlene Tribal Council . . . that unless something was done to stop allotted trust lands from being sold out of Indian ownership that it would in time completely force many of the allotted Indian tribes out of existence; and whereas protests from any source whether it be in the form of program or demonstration against this policy would be considered a great stride in helping to correct htis policy so unfavorable to . . . tribal groups; WHEREAS such a program as . . . The American Stranger, sponsored by Robert McCormick, was considered fair in that it only attempts by its demonstration what the general public should know, which can best be regarded as an intent to help the BIA better its relationship with the Indian People, BE IT RESOLVED, THEREFORE, that for the particular part that points out the wrong of the present Indian land sale policy of the BIA, the Coeur dAlene Tribal Council hereby congratulates Robert McCormick, the NBC and joins others in the recommendation of award for this noble effort, the intent of which was not so much to criticize but to help right the wrong in the present land policy of the BIA. The resolution also commended Metcalf, Byrne, and all the Tribes that cooperated to make the program a reality. 97

301 In the deep winter of January 1959, McCormick had received a letter from Max Gubatayao, one of the Great Falls non-Indian activists, about the deaths of three Blackfeet children, cousins of one of the children with polio featured in the documentary: Theodore Last Star on hearing about it said, "Why they starved, of course. I talked on TV and told them that Indians were selling the land because they are starving." Jerry Thumm said the same thing when he heard the report. Iliff McKay is trying to get the facts of the story complete. His first comment was,"We'll have to shore up the welfare." He also reports the temperature went to -32 in some areas. 98 A subsequent telegram came to McCormick from Theodore Last Star, one of the fullblooded Blackfeet elders who had been featured in The American Stranger: I AM HERE IN HOSPITAL. THEY TELL ME THEY FIND THEM LITTLE RUNNING RABBIT CHILDREN DEAD. THEY STARVE I THINK LIKE I TOLD YOU ON THE TELEVISION THAT WE SURE HARD UP. THIS IS KIND OF PROVING IT. 99 Last Stars brief but poignant message attested to the empirical facts of the truths he and his fellow tribesmen had tried to convey through their appearance on the televised documentary; his subsequent appeal to McCormick reflected the trust the elder had placed in this white journalist to make sure that something would be done as a result of their pleas for help.

302 NOTES TO CHAPTER FOUR

1. David M. Newman, Sociology: Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life (Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press, 1995) 44. 2. Trinh T. Minh-ha, The Totalizing Quest for Meaning, in Theorizing Documentary, ed. Michael Renov (New York: Routledge, 1993) 90, 92, 96. 3. Charlotte Ryan, Prime Time Activism: Media Strategies for Grassroots Organizing (Boston: South End Press, 1991) 79. 4. Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks (1929-1935), ed. and trans. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (New York: International Publishers, 1971) 177-178. 5. A leading example is William Zimmerman, Jr., who as Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs during the late 1940s had prepared much of the legal and bureaucratic groundwork for termination, but who, once out of office in the 1950s, was a leading member of the Association on American Indian Affairs in its fight against termination. 6. Statement by Montana Farmers Union Vice-President Richard Shipman of Lewiston, Montana, before the joint session of the House Subcommittee on Indian Affairs and the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in a hearing on the proposed Flathead Termination Bill (undated [1954]). AAIA Papers. 7. Telegram to The President, The White House, dated 16 November 1958 from Mr. and Mrs. Charles Thomas Barber of Fontana, California. All telegrams are in Eisenhower Presidential Library, WH Central Files, GF File 147 "1958 Indians", Box 1164. 8. Telegram dated 16 November 1958 from Alice Sands of Little Neck, New York. 9. Telegram dated 16 November 1958 from A. G. Laramy of Grays Lake, Illinois. 10. Telegram dated 16 November 1958 from Mrs. Catherine Janton of Houston, Texas. 11. Telegram dated 17 November 1958 from Mr. and Mrs. D.A. Mayes of Chicago, Illinois. 12. Eisenhower Presidential Library, WH Central Files, GF File 147 "1958 Indians", Box 1164.

303 13. In his 1961 M.A. Thesis about The American Stranger, Robert Knutzen indicated that a BIA representative estimated that their office received 500-750 letters or postcards alone, and an additional number were received by the Department of the Interior, as well as by individual Congressional legislators. Unfortunately, only a handful of the letters written to the federal agencies by viewers of The American Stranger still exist. Their absence from the files perhaps indicates that they were not deemed important enough to save. Another possibility is that the files were destroyed during the siege of the Bureau of Indian Affairs headquarters by militant American Indian Movement members in 1972 during what became known as the Trail of Broken Treaties. 14. Copy of letter sent to Secretary of the Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs from Rev. Glenn Toler, Pastor, Southeast Baptist Church, Kansas City, Missouri. McCormick Papers. 15. Letter to Bureau of Indian Affairs dated 17 November 1958 from Charity Travis of Montclair, New Jersey. McCormick Papers. Copy to McCormick with handwritten note reading: "You might be interested in this copy of a letter sent the Indian Bureau. Bully for you!" 16. Letter to Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton dated 24 November 1958 from Mrs. David Stern of Mount Vernon, New York. National Archives, RG48, Office of the Secretary of the Interior, Classified Central Files, Box 313. 17. Letter to Metcalf postmarked 25 November 1958 from Mrs. Paul Beem, Secretary for Christian Social Relations, First Methodist Church, New Haven, Connecticut. Metcalf Papers 225/3. 18. Letter to Metcalf dated November 1958 from Mrs. G.G. Rodgers of East Haven, Connecticut. Metcalf Papers 225/3. 19. Letter to Mrs. G. Rodgers dated 24 November 1958 from Betty Small of Metcalfs Helena Field Office Staff. A similar letter dated 26 November 1958 was sent to Mr Craig Davis of Whippany, New Jersey, but with additional information including the addresses of national Indian organizations NCAI and AAIA. Both Metcalf Papers 225/3. 20. Letter to Metcalf dated 17 November 1958 from television viewer in Arlington, Virginia (letter is missing signature page). Metcalf papers 225/3. 21. Letter to McCormick dated 18 March 1959 from Marion, Margaret, Paul and Dorothy Payne of Eastchester, New York. McCormick Papers. 22. Letter to Metcalf, with a copy to Rep. Thomas M. Pelly, dated 19 November 1958, from (Mrs.) Eva B. Gruber of Seattle, Washington. Metcalf Papers 225/3.

304 23. Letter to Metcalf dated 16 November 1958 from Ronald Stauder of W. Hyattsville, Maryland. Metcalf Papers 225/3. 24. Letter to Metcalf dated 17 November 1958 from Albert C. Finley, written on the letterhead of Ed Schiller, Superintendent, Choteau Public Schools, Choteau, Montana. Metcalf Papers 225/3. 25. Letter to Metcalf dated 21 November 1958 from Sherry Gorelick of Bronx, New York. Metcalf Papers 225/3. 26. Letter to Metcalf (no date) from Russell Barker of Bend, Oregon. Metcalf Papers 225/3. 27. Letter to The President, The White House, dated 25 November 1958 from John F. Baldwin, Member of Congress, 6th District, California. Eisenhower Presidential Library, File 4-B "Bureau of Indian Affairs 1956-1960, Box 117, Official File. 28. Letter to Metcalf dated 24 November 1958 from Rep. John V. Lindsay, New York, New York. In response, Metcalfs staff sent Lindsay a copy of a speech Metcalf made in January, 1958, to the Indian Rights Association, in a letter dated 3 December 1958 from Merrill Englund, Executive Secretary to Metcalf. Metcalf Papers 225/3. 29. Letter to Rep. John V. Lindsay dated 17 November 1958 from Sterling Lanier of New York, New York. Metcalf Papers 225/3. 30. Letter to Senators Henry Jackson and Warren Magnuson, with a copy to McCormick, from James E. Peck of Seattle, Washington. McCormick Papers. 31. Letter to NBC dated 16 November 1958 from James F. Graves Jr. of Kankakee, Illinois. McCormick Papers. 32. Letter to NBC dated 16 November 1958 from Elizabeth (Mrs. Charles R.) Marsh of Boalsburg, Pennsylvania. McCormick Papers. 33. Letter to Metcalf dated 18 November 1958 from Minerva Lang of Point Pleasant Beach, New Jersey. Metcalf Papers 225/3. 34. Reports on the BIA rumor and Metcalf's mail in letter from Richard Charles to Henry Tallbull, North Cheyenne Tribe, dated 29 November 1958. Sister Providencia Papers (Cheney Cowles) 5/1. The KFBB reaction was reported in an "Indian Information" Circular, dated 3 December 1958, distributed by the Friends of Hill 57, Great Falls, Montana. Sister Providencia Papers, Sisters of Providence Archives, Spokane, Washington.

305 35. Letter to McCormick dated 16 November 1958 from W. G. Van Winkle of Fair Lawn New Jersey. McCormick Papers. 36. Letter to McCormick dated 19 November 1958 from Beverly M. Keller (no address given). McCormick Papers. 37. Letter to McCormick dated 16 November 1958 from Vera Kelly of Hawthorne, New Jersey. McCormick Papers. 38. Letter to McCormick dated 1 December 1958 from Stanley A. Karatz of San Francisco, California. McCormick Papers. 39. Letter to Metcalf dated 18 November 1958 from Josephine Henry of Alhambra, California. Metcalf Papers 225/3. 40. Letter to McCormick dated 16 November 1958 from Elinor Sullivan of Louisville, Kentucky. McCormick Papers. 41. Letter to Robert E. Kintner, President, National Broadcasting Company, dated 26 November 1958, from Elmer F. Bennett, Acting Secretary of the Interior. Copy also sent to General David Sarnoff, Chairman of the Board, Radio Corporation of America. McCormick Papers. 42. As a pillar of broadcast regulation, the Fairness Doctrine was codified by Congress in its 1959 Amendments to Section 315(a) of the Communications Act (P. L. 86-274, 73 Stat. 557), according to Harvey L. Zuckman et al., Mass Communications Law (St. Paul: West Publishing Co.) 455-469. 43. Statement by the Department of the Interior Concerning the Kaleidoscope Television Program of November 16, 1958, on the American Indian (undated). Copy sent to NBC with a letter to NBC President Robert Kintner dated 26 November 1958 from Assistant Interior Secretary Elmer Bennett. McCormick Papers. All subsequent quotes, as indicated, are from this document. 44. The Statement explained: "There was, however, a mix-up over the $40,000. This arose because the tribal council in a resolution to liquidate the cattle enterprise called for an audit of the proceeds "by a competent firm of auditors." The Bureau was arranging for such an audit at the time of the land sale and consequently the funds were not available. Once it became clear to the Indian Bureau in Washington that the tribe wanted the money made available for land purchase without waiting for an audit, it was released without further question. However, this did not take place until after the land sale had been consummated. . . ." 45. The Statement reads: "A mere reading of the 1954 Flathead termination bill is

306 enough to show the falsity of this allegation. Section 5 of that bill provided that within a 2-year period from the date of enactment the tribe could request the Secretary of the Interior to transfer title covering its communal property (including the dam site) either to a corporation organized by the tribe or to one or more private trustees of the tribe's choice for management or liquidation purposes. Only in the event that the tribe exercised no option in property transfer would the property sale have been mandatory." 46. The Statement's version: "The Flathead power project started in 1930 when the Federal Power Commission issued a license for the work. The Kerr Plant, as it is now known, was completed in 1938. Under terms of the license, the tribe has received a total of $3,603,782. The present rental rate is $175,000 a year, and it will be increased by at least $50,000 a year now that a third generating unit is installed. Negotiations for the increase are under way. The tribe will be getting around $225,000 rent from the project. Under the 50-year term of the Federal Power license, it is estimated--and the estimate is conservative--that the tribe will receive more than $8,000,000 in rentals. The project has also provided employment for the Indians. During the construction, individual Indians had preference clauses in various contracts, and got jobs that paid them more than $1,000,000. The power project also benefits the irrigation system. It permits cheaper operation and maintenance rates for delivering irrigation water to the land. The project provides 15,000 kilowatt hours of power free for pumping." 47. Letter to the Honorable Elmer F. Bennett, Undersecretary, Department of the Interior, dated 4 December 1958 from David Sarnoff, Chairman of the Board, Radio Corporation of America. National Archives, RG 48, Office of Secretary of the Interior, Classified Central Files, Box 313. 48. Associated Press wire story (teletype), dated 4 December [1958]. McCormick Papers. 49. Transcript of NBC News, Thursday, December 4, 1958. NBC Papers 534/4. 50. "Interior Dept Irked at TV Programs . . . Metcalf, Murray Criticize Treatment of Indians by GOP Administration," Great Falls Tribune (5 December 1958), "Indian Bureau Raps TV Program Which Handled it Badly," Abilene (Kansas) Reporter-News (5 December 1958), "Montana Members of Congress Hit Administration Indian Policy" Rocky Mountain News (Denver, Colorado) (5 December 1958), "Interior Department Seeks to Answer NBC Indian Show," Baton Rouge (Louisiana) Advocate (5 December 1958), "Blast Treatment of Indians By Administration," The Missoulian (Missoula, Montana) (5 December 1958). 51. AAIA Annual Report on Public Education, dated 17 December 1958, attached to Executive Committee Minutes. AAIA Papers.

307 52. Letter to Elmer Bennett dated 5 December 1958 from Charles D. Williams, El Cerrito, California. National Archives, Office of the Secretary of the Interior, Classified Central Files, Box 313. 53. Letter to Elmer F. Bennett dated 19 December 1958 from Robert E. Kintner, President of NBC. Skilling Papers. 54. Letter to William McAndrew dated 9 January 1959 from Win Fanning, attached to column entitled Indian Bureau Says Kaleidoscope Lied dated 9 January 1959 from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, letter to Fanning dated 26 January 1959 from McAndrew, and memo to McCormick dated 26 January 1959 from McAndrew. Skilling Papers. 55. Letter to McCormick dated 17 November 1958 from James Rowe, Jr., Corcoran, Youngman and Rowe Law Firm, Washington, D.C. McCormick Papers. 56. Letter to McCormick dated 17 November 1958 from W. W. Peter M.D. (no address given). McCormick Papers. 57. Letter to Robert Kintner dated 26 December 1958 from E. Morgan Pryse, Area Director, U. S. Indian Service, Retired; Colonel, C. E., USA, Retired; of Washington, D. C. McCormick Papers. 58. Letter to McCormick dated 17 November 1958 from Robert D. Hodgsen of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. McCormick Papers. 59. Letter to McCormick dated 16 November 1958 from Maxine W. Robbins and Gertrude L. Stevens of Seattle, Washington. McCormick Papers. 60. Letter to McCormick dated 5 December 1958 from George Fathauer of Oxford, Ohio. McCormick Papers. 61. Letter to McCormick dated 17 November 1958 from Mr. and Mrs. Ben Lewis, New York, New York. McCormick Papers. 62. Letter to NBC dated 30 November 1958 from Carol F. Rush of Flint, Michigan. McCormick Papers. 63. Letter to McCormick dated 1 December 1958 from Dorothy Van de Mark of Chicago, Illinois. McCormick Papers. For the internal Interior Department reaction to her article, see correspondence dated March of 1956 between Assistant Secretaries Wesley DEwart, Felix Wormer, and the editorial staff of Harpers Magazine. National Archives, RG 48, Office of the Secretary of the Interior, Classified Central Files, Box 315.

308 64. Letter to McCormick dated 16 November 1958 from Ben Calderone of Hyde Park, New York. McCormick Papers. 65. Letter to McCormick dated 10 December 1958 from Phebe J. N. (Mrs. Angus F.) Lookaround of Shawano, Wisconsin. Attached is a brochure about Mrs. Lookaround, apparently a non-Indian married to a Menominee, offering her credentials as a speaker on Indian history, culture and lore and as an author, poet and novelist. McCormick Papers. 66. Letter to McCormick dated 14 December 1958 from Mrs. James S. Hartley (no address provided). McCormick Papers. 67. Letter to McCormick dated 17 November 1958 from Father J.P. Hurley (S.J.), Cathedral of St. James, Seattle, Washington. McCormick Papers. 68. Letter to McCormick dated 17 November 1958 from Annalee (Mrs. Alexander) Stewart, Legislative Secretary, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Legislative Office, United States Section, Washington, D.C. McCormick Papers. 69. Letter to McCormick dated 20 November 1958 from Willard W. Beatty, Board member, Save the Children Federation, Norwalk, Connecticut. McCormick Papers. 70. Letter to McCormick dated 24 November 1958 from Lawrence E. Lindley, General Secretary of the Indian Rights Association, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. McCormick Papers. 71. Letter to McCormick dated 5 December 1958 from Charles H. Stoddard, Chief of Forestry Division, Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington, D.C. McCormick Papers. 72. Letter to McCormick dated 10 December 1958 from Charles Callison, Conservation Director, National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. McCormick Papers. 73. Letter to McCormick dated 17 November 1958 from Rev. E. Russell Carter, Field Representative, Committee on Indian Work, Division of Home Missions, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., of Lawrence, Kansas. McCormick Papers. 74. Letter to McCormick dated 6 January 1959 from The Indian Committee (Dorothy O. Bucklin, Chairman, and Louisa R. Shotwell, Secretary) of the Division of Home Missions, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. of New York, New York. McCormick Papers.

309 75. Letter to NBC dated 16 November 1958 from Reuben D. Martel of Albuquerque, New Mexico. McCormick Papers. 76. Letter to McCormick dated 16 November from H. Nesn of Ashland Mis[souri?]. McCormick Papers. 77. Letter to McCormick dated 27 December 1958 from Ed. LaPlante of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. McCormick Papers. 78. Letter to McCormick dated 6 December 1958 from Earl Marshall of New York City. McCormick Papers. 79. Letter from Meade Swingley for Walter Wetzel, Blackfeet Tribal Chairman, to LaVerne Madigan, Executive Director of the AAIA, New York. AAIA Papers. 80. Note to Wetzel, dated 17 November 1958, on bottom half of BIA memo (dated 3 November 1958) alerting employees about upcoming television report. McKay Papers. 81. Letter to Father Byrne dated [November 1958] from Hazel Magee Raymond of San Pedro, California. Copy sent as Letter to the Editor of Char-Koosta (December 1958), a publication of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (Walter McDonald, Editor). Metcalf Papers 604/5. 82. Letter to McCormick dated 16 November 1958 from Jimalee (Mrs. Dan) Burton (Princess Ho-Chee-Nee). McCormick Papers. 83. Letter to Herbert Sussan, Special Features Department, NBC dated 19 November 1958 from Ralph W. Allen, Indian League of the Americans, The Club House, 150 West 85th Street, New York, New York. McCormick Papers. 84. According to Tom-Pee-Saw, the Indians blamed BIA Agency officials, who were supposedly using the tribal funds for salaries of agency employees. Also, Tom-Pee-Saw claimed, We believe a racket exists between the Reservation Agency Officials, their Police Dept. and the Law and Order officers. 273 Ute Indians, with the assistance of the League of North American Indians, had filed charges against Ute Agency Superintendent and three other officials as of September, 1958, and a Federal Grand Jury investigation was pending. Letter to Metcalf dated 17 November 1958 from Frank Tom-Pee-Saw, Cherokee, Secretary, League of North American Indians, Parsons, Kansas. Metcalf Papers 225/ 3. 85. Letter to McCormick dated 28 December 1958 and letter to the Editor of the Phoenix Gazette dated 1 January 1959 from Craig, Mohawk, Editor of Indian Views, publication of the League of North American Indians, of Los Angeles, California.

310 McCormick Papers. 86. Letter to McCormick dated 30 April 1959 from John Yazzie. McCormick Papers. The Don Sherwood case is documented in several other sources. In a letter to a concerned viewer of The American Stranger who claimed that Sherwood had the guts to bring this mess into the open and since NBC had the guts to continue it, maybe well get somewhere, Assistant Interior Secretary Roger Ernst stated that Because many of Mr. Sherwoods statements were factually incorrect and seriously misleading, representatives of the Navajo Tribe and the Bureau of Indian Affairs received opportunity for a half-hour television rebuttal. The Navajo Indians themselves dispelled the wrong impressions conveyed by Mr. Sherwood. Correspondence dated 5 December 1958 and 24 December 1958 between Charles Williams of El Cerrito, California and the Department of the Interior (Roger Ernst). National Archives, Office of the Secretary of the Interior, Classified Central Files, Box 313. In another letter the same week, Roger Ernst responded to another viewer: You mentioned a San Francisco radio announcers dispute with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We assume you referred to Mr. Don Sherwood who carried on considerable discussion about the Navajo Indians over both television and radio in San Francisco several months ago. Because many of Mr. Sherwoods statements were factually inaccurate and seriously misleading, representatives of the Navajo Tribe and the Bureau of Indian Affairs protested to the management of the television station and were given opportunity for a half-hour television rebuttal in accordance with the equal time principle. Contrary to your apparent impression, however, neither this department nor the Bureau of Indian Affairs has any part whatever in the interruption of Mr. Sherwoods telecast of May 23. This was a decision made solely by the management of the television station. We have no power of censorship over any television stations, and we want none. Letter to John Breed of Belmont, California dated 23 December 1958 from Assistant Interior Secretary Roger Ernst. National Archives, Office of the Secretary of the Interior, Classified Central Files, Box 289. According to notations on the form, this letter was rewritten five different times over a two-month period by three different staff members before it was mailed. 87. Lettter to NBC dated 18 November 1958 from L. M. Longwood of Wilber, Washington. McCormick Papers. For a retrospective examination of the controversy over termination on the Colville reservation, see Kathleen A. Dahl, The Battle Over Termination on the Colville Indian Reservation, American Indian Culture and Research Journal 18/1 (1994) 29-53. 88. Form letter sent to those responding to the television show by Iliff McKay. This copy to McCormick dated 9 December 1959. McCormick Papers. 89. Form letter sent by Reinhold Brust, Assistant Area Director, Billings (Montana) Area Office, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, to all those who wrote the BIA in response to the television show who desired to send donations for the Indians. A copy of this

311 letter was also sent out by McKay in conjunction with his letter (above). McKay Papers. 90. Letter to Sister Providencia dated 7 November 1958 from Mrs. Annie Doare of Browning, Montana. McCormick Papers. 91. Malcolm McFee, Modern Blackfeet: Montanans on a Reservation (Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, 1972) 29, 60. McFees anthropological field work on the Blackfeet Reservation was carried out beginning in 1959. 92. Letter to McKay dated 15 December from Arthur Lazarus, Jr., Strasser, Spiegelberg, Fried & Frank Law Firm, Washington, D.C. McKay Papers. 93. Minutes of Special Meeting of Blackfeet Tribal Council, dated 11 December 1958. McCormick papers. 94. Press Release dated 5 December 1958 by Walter McDonald, Chairman of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and President, Montana Inter-Tribal Policy Board. Metcalf Papers 604/5. 95. Walter W. McDonald, Editorially Speaking, Char-Koosta (December 1958), publication of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. Senator James Murray Papers (University of Montana, Missoula), Box 264, File 4. 96. NCAI Press Release dated 5 December [1958] and letter dated 10 December 1958 to Wayne Gilpin et al., Macy Nebraska. NCAI Papers. 97. Resolution of Coeur dAlene Tribe, adopted 6 December 1958 in Plummer, Idaho, as signed by Joseph Garry (Chair) and Lena Louie (Secy). McCormick Papers. 98. Letter to McCormick dated 4 January 1959 from Max Gubatayao of Great Falls. McCormick Papers. 99. Telegraph to McCormick dated 5 January 1959 from Theodore Last Star, c/o Columbus Hospital, Great Falls, Montana. McCormick Papers.