Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

SPEAKER: Reverend John Adams is director of law, justice, and community relations for the United Methodist Church in Washington, DC. He was delegated by the National Council of Churches as its senior mediator at Wounded Knee during that 71-day confrontation last spring. The Council credits Adams with the successful attempt at influencing the Justice Department to negotiate with the Indians, rather than to deal with the occupation primarily as a law enforcement question.

Reverend Adams has closely followed the trial here in St. Paul of Russell Means and Dennis Banks. On a recent visit, we recorded the following interview. Did the Justice Department welcome your presence on the Pine Ridge Reservation?

REV. JOHN ADAMS: Some welcomed our presence and utilized it very heavily. There was a succession of representatives of the government, as you know, assistant attorneys general and others. Some were, I think, more in favor of our being there than others were.

But for the most part, for the period of time that we worked there, the government was very receptive, in fact, both in Washington and in Pine Ridge. And we were able, I think, to furnish some resources and some options that they used. Similarly, the American Indian Movement did.

Someone the other day asked, well, didn't you just feel used by AIM? And I said, well, when you're in a mediating role, you're used by everybody. That's the role you're playing. The tribal council had asked the Department of Justice to come in, and had asked them to resolve that conflict.

And at that point, whether rightfully or wrongly, it passed out of the tribal councils hands and became, in essence, a conflict between the United States Department of Justice, and the Americas Indian Movement, and the Oglala Sioux Civil Rights Organization. So I did have some consultation with the tribal council, but they themselves said they were not in the negotiations, in fact, didn't want to be in the negotiations because they didn't think there was anything to negotiate.

And that, of course, was a view we didn't share. So we were, I think, in contention with them. Anyone who was supporting negotiations would seem to give some legitimation to the issues that were being surfaced by the American Indian Movement. I think any time that you support negotiations, you do, in a sense, legitimate those who are bringing those issues in contention.

So I think, yes, we were seen as giving some legitimation or sanctioning to AIM, but actually AIM knew very well, and so did the government, that we were not there to represent AIM. We were not advocates for the American Indian Movement or their objectives under these circumstances, nor were we under the circumstances, representatives of the government either.

We weren't agents of the government, and we weren't representatives of AIM. Not all parts of the government wanted to negotiate either. Not all within the Department of Justice wanted to negotiate.

But when the government assumed a position that it did want to negotiate, then we were supportive of it, such as when an Assistant Attorney General came into Pine Ridge, as one did on assignment, called me, and knew that I had some circulation back and forth, and that AIM had a level of trust in us, then he said to me on the phone, I want to see the leaders of AIM as quickly as possible. I want to talk with them. And I said, all right, I'll take that message down to them.

And I was able to get through the federal road block. They'd given me clearance. I was able to get through the AIM roadblock. I had a credential to get through.

SPEAKER: What was the atmosphere in Wounded Knee at that time?

REV. JOHN ADAMS: It was tense. It was anxious. I think there was also a very strong commitment on the part of those who were there. There was an amazing kind of unity. But when I went to the leadership and they got together, they brought themselves together in the little house down there, and I said, there's a new Assistant Attorney General who's come in and says that he is bringing a new proposal from the White House, wants to talk with you as quickly as possible.

And they, of course, had several persons talk to them prior to that. And their answer was, let him come down here. And I didn't think that would be accepted. But I said, I'll take that message back. And I drove back, 18 miles, to the BIA, and Pine Ridge, went to him and I said, they will talk with you, but they'd like for you to come on the inside. And he was advised against it by the Marshals and by the FBI.

SPEAKER: The man you're speaking of was Kent Frizzell?

REV. JOHN ADAMS: No, this was Harlington Wood, who is now a federal judge in Illinois, but he was then an Assistant Attorney General. Well, anyway, he did decide he would go in. And he went through both roadblocks. And I accompanied him, went in, and met with him and the AIM leadership.

Out of that came some other negotiating sessions. And I really think went a long way to establish, I'd say, the posture of the government. There was a level of communication between AIM leadership and Mr. Wood that was really superb. I mean, they were really-- it was a friendly, frank, open discussion.

SPEAKER: Wood was later replaced by Kent Frizzell, the man I've just mentioned.

REV. JOHN ADAMS: That's right.

SPEAKER: Why was he replaced if that communication was superb?

REV. JOHN ADAMS: Well, I couldn't answer that altogether in terms of what the strategy was back in Washington. There were varying strategies that the government used to try to resolve the conflict. I know that Mr. Wood at the time said that he was needed back in Washington.

I presume that it could very well have related to his responsibility in the department, which at the time was under some real pressures from Watergate, which was just starting to emerge as a serious pressure. So it may well have been that he had to return for that reason.

SPEAKER: Did you meet with Kent Frizzell then, the man who replaced Harlington Wood?

REV. JOHN ADAMS: I met him. However, it was almost simultaneous with his coming that we were ordered off the reservation by the tribal police. There had been a court-- a tribal court order for some several days prior to that, which was to remove us. But Mr. Wood had said to me at the time what they really want to do is limit the number of persons that the NCC has here. And he said, we're going to keep you here.

And in fact, he said, if we have to swear you in as a chaplain in the United States Marshals service, we're going to keep you here. There was a lot of, I call it, functional friction as the various groups were operating in a very difficult situation. There was conflict between, even the FBI and the Marshals.

There was disagreement between the Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior. There was disagreement within the Department of Interior over and, say, BIA. There were many conflicts taking place simultaneously. There were very strong pressures for it to be resolved as a law enforcement problem, and that simply to use whatever authority and whatever force was necessary to apprehend those who, allegedly, were guilty of serious crimes.

SPEAKER: You did not necessarily sanction the takeover of Wounded Knee, and yet you say that the grievances and issues represented by Wounded Knee were valid.

REV. JOHN ADAMS: Right. I think that the issues that have been highlighted and pinpointed by the occupation of Wounded Knee were known long before Wounded Knee ever happened. And I think that the level of frustration among American Indians, not just tribal council officials, and more and more, some of them are also expressing some of the same views.

But I mean, among persons who live out on the reservations, often far from the centers of the BIA operation, that there are grievances, and they have been documented by the government, not just by AIM, but agencies of the government have brought, or tried to bring to the attention of the public and of Congress serious human needs, serious negligences that there are.

And I think that it's out of those kinds of neglects and injustices that-- and out of the frustration related to them, that such things as the occupation of the BIA building in November of 1972, or the occupation of Wounded Knee, in the spring of 1973, have come.

That doesn't mean to say that again, that we would approve of the destruction of property or the threat to human life or the violence that seems to be related to these kinds of confrontations. But American Indian Movement leaders, I think, would like for us to understand that there are violences that American Indian people have to live under daily, and that that's as much violence.

It's systemic violence, but it's as much violence as the kind of violence that the movement has seemed to spawn in trying to bring these issues to our attention. Well, that's the reason I say that I think we can recognize that a message is trying to be communicated without necessarily agreeing that that's the mechanism by which that message ought to be given to us.

If we don't hear it-- it's like other minorities have often said, we've tried to say this to you in other ways. We've gone through the system. We've tried to recognize all of the procedures. But if there aren't valid mechanisms by which grievances can be, not only expressed, but brought to a level of attention with some response by the government, I think such confrontations are inevitable.

I think a good example is, on a one-to-one basis is the other day at the airport in Baltimore, Washington, when the man tried to hijack the airplane, said he was going to fly it into the White House, there was a clinical psychiatrist who made the statement that that kind of violent behavior ought often to be interpreted as a cry for help, that when there are threats, we ought to take them seriously.

And I think often in terms of social violence, and in terms of social conflict, that there is a message that they're attempting to communicate to us. And if we just try to destroy the people who are giving the message, I think we're making a mistake.

We need to decipher, we need to understand. And I think that the more we look very closely at the needs of American Indians and this society, we'll see the validity of the grievances that have been expressed.

And I think that's another thing that happened at Wounded Knee. And I heard many government officials say, including some assistant attorneys general, that they learned. It was a learning experience for them. They never realized some of what they observed, not only in terms of, say, poverty conditions on a reservation, but also in terms of how the bureaucracy functions on a reservation.

And it was a learning experience. And I think, frankly, that that's what Wounded Knee was for the public at large. It was obvious, say, from that Harris Poll that was taken in March of 1973 that more than 90% of the public seemed to be following the episode in the media, and that more than 60% of those who were following it, the poll indicated, were sympathetic with the grievances of the American Indians as they understood them.

Now, what that meant was, they may not have really understood the issues. But the point was that there was a raising of consciousness, and there was a sharpening of awareness about American Indian problems in this country. And the other day in Washington, Senator Abdirisak, who was chairman of the subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Senate interior and insular affairs committee, said that, as destructive as Wounded Knee was, that it did seem to make it a little easier to move legislation.

In other words, easier for the committee to function because there was a greater consciousness in the Congress as a result of Wounded Knee. Now, Wounded Knee was a tragedy in many ways. It could have been a far greater tragedy if the government had not finally negotiated it. If we just had an assault, and there were people who, as you say, felt that's the way to do it.

There were phrases used like freeze them out, starve them out, and shoot them out. And there were people who really wanted that done. But if we'd had massive loss of life-- there was loss of life-- but if we'd had massive loss of life, it would have both been, it would have been American Indians and it would have been government officials to agents.

I think we would have had repercussions in this country on reservations, many reservations, just as we had repercussions in many cities after the assassination of Dr. King. I think we would have had explosions in many places.

And I think our society, particularly after the end of the Vietnam war, which left us uncertain, and then with the emergence of Watergate, I think that to add another trauma like Attica was a trauma or Kent State was a trauma, for us to add another one on a particularly on that power-packed historical site where the massacre took place in 1890 for us to have another massacre, whether of government officials or Indians on that site, would have not only been traumatic but tragic for our society. I really believe that.

SPEAKER: In your support for Wounded Knee and for those legitimate grievances, which you felt the occupation surfaced, do you support the American Indian Movement as a valid spokesman for those needs and frustrations?

REV. JOHN ADAMS: I don't believe there's any way that we can validate the role of AIM. I think that's for American Indians to do. I think we can recognize the role they play. In other words, I don't see that the white majority population has ever been able to say, well, we choose SCLC but not SNCC, or we'll take NAACP but not SCLC in terms of the Black minority.

It isn't for us to say which group is going to be able to represent the interests and politically move the government. That's something that's worked out within the minority community, and I think that's where it needs to be worked out. Similarly, I think there has emerged, within the last year, within the American Indian community, an amazing kind of coalition.

I think groups that people have thought were on far ends of the spectrum in opposition to one another politically have coalesced and will continue to coalesce so that they may be playing different roles in terms of working with the white majority or working with the government. But I think they will be far more coordinated.

And I think AIM's role has been recognized in places that a year ago, it would have been discredited. I think it has been recognized. And that's just something I've observed. It isn't anything we can do, of course. That's just happening. And I believe that, as I like to put it, they used to say that as an example, SCLC, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, never represented all Blacks, and there was once a poll that showed they only represented 6%.

But they didn't have to represent all Blacks. All they had to do was represent the grievances of that minority. And in a sense, that's all AIM has to do. Dennis Banks will say, Russell Means will say we don't represent all Indians. We don't say that we represent all Indians. But all they have to do is represent grievances as Indians know them. And then they're the spokesman, or they are the spokesman with other groups.

And I think that's what we're experiencing, is that they have articulated. They've been sensitive to and responsive to the kinds of grievances that apparently American Indians really have a common understanding about.

And that's what we are seeing now as the support of the American Indian Movement. And that, of course, is the threat, is that if they really have that kind of support, then that gives that-- it gives AIM a kind of leverage that is far greater than their numbers.

SPEAKER: Am I correct in saying, Reverend Adams, that under your influence and that of other church ministers within the National Council of Churches, many congregations have raised thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in support of bail for American Indians with respect to charges stemming from Wounded Knee?

REV. JOHN ADAMS: Well, there have not been, so far as I know, congregations that have-- there were contributions by many congregations during the time of Wounded Knee, spontaneous offerings taken. And the money was used to furnish food, which the government permitted us to take in to Wounded Knee. It furnished medical supplies. It paid for two funerals, funerals of the two Indians who were killed and so on.

As far as bail is concerned, those funds have come from agencies that were able to officially, or with authorization, use funds and deposit them so that they would be the security for the bail of particular persons, in order that they could be free on bail, partially to prepare their case in close consultation with their counsel, but also to go around the country and interpret the issues and try to raise money for their legal defense.

So there have been church agencies. One of these was the United Methodist, and an annual conference in the state of Iowa year ago in June, in a conference that is nearly 1,000 persons debated the issue. They were challenged to furnish bail.

They voted it after long discussion and a vote, something like 540 to 460. They furnished $85,000 bail for Dennis Banks. Now, that was not something a church executive did. It was representatives of local churches that voted it.

SPEAKER: And that was only part of the bail.

REV. JOHN ADAMS: That's only part of what was furnished by the churches.

SPEAKER: I mean, that was only part of the bail necessary to release Dennis Banks?

REV. JOHN ADAMS: That's right. His bail was $105,000. And so there was $20,000 more contributed by an individual, a not church-related, and that composed his full bail.

SPEAKER: Has that kind of action within the Methodist Church cost you of people in the congregation the support of people in traditional churches across the country?

REV. JOHN ADAMS: Well, I think that the news about that particular support was rather widespread in the church. But you see, it was not the action of a national church agency, that we would consider to be local church action.

SPEAKER: Reverend Adams, in the last 10 or 15 years, many church going parishioners in American churches have resented the growing interpretation by many ministers of the gospel in a social light. When they ask you about Wounded Knee, what do you say?

REV. JOHN ADAMS: Jesus talks about loving our neighbor. That means that the gospel has social implication. Loving one's neighbor is not the expressing of sentimental feeling. It is to be concerned.

And when someone said to our Lord, well, who is our neighbor? He used an example of the good Samaritan, where someone who really was alienated from the Jewish society, a Samaritan, took initiative to meet the human needs of someone who had become a victim, a social victim, really.

And I think that that's what we're saying is that as important as it is for an individual to understand the gospel, that we are obligated to affect the love of Christ in a social context. I believe that isn't something you add on. It's not an extracurricular activity. It's a direct expression of the love of Christ.

Therefore, Wounded Knee itself, as far as we were concerned, it was a natural thing for the church to be present there. There were critical human needs and concentrated in a very serious confrontation. There was the imminent, serious loss of human life. It was altogether possible that many people could have been seriously injured and their lives lost, unless some things were done and done quickly.

I'm not saying that the church did them all, or that we even knew what to do, but we attempted to minister, and some of the ministries apparently were effective. Now, that's the reason we were there. We weren't there just-- somebody might say, well, you were just some more liberals out to ride a white horse into a social issue. But we were there to make a Christian witness.

And Christian witness is made not only by just using pious vocabulary or, as Christ put it, not everyone who says, lord, Lord is going to inherit the Kingdom of heaven, but those who do, who know the will of our Father and do it.

And we believe that the will of God has to do with recognizing human need, and then using some of the resource that the church has, which was given by people out of their Christian commitment, but using some of that resource to find peaceable solutions rather than violent ones to the serious social problems that we have.

SPEAKER: You probably know quite well another minister who was at Wounded Knee, the Reverend Paul Bowe.

REV. JOHN ADAMS: Yes, I know him well.

SPEAKER: He spent 10 days there. That visit produced a subpoena from a grand jury. The grand jury was in Sioux Falls. That grand jury asked Reverend Bowe for the names of people who were in the occupation. He refused. He invoked the pastoral privilege, as he saw it, of not answering. And then he was sentenced to jail in contempt of that grand jury.

In Saint Louis at the Court of Appeals, he was freed just moments before he was to go to jail, perhaps for as long as 14 or 18 months. The issue, however, at the Court of appeals, the issue of the pastoral privilege of privileged communication was not really dealt with. An end run was made, and he was released for a technical reason. I believe a subpoena hadn't come in time for him or something of that nature

REV. JOHN ADAMS: To have adequate preparation made with counsel.

SPEAKER: One of the questions asked by him at the Grand jury session was, did you go to Wounded Knee to perform a Christian witness? And he said he did. Were those in Wounded Knee, did they consider themselves to be Christian? No, many of them did not. Did you perform any religious services at Wounded Knee? No, I did not.

Many of those in Wounded Knee were trying to return to the traditional Indian ways, the traditional Indian spiritual values. We consider those pagan. And if you were there in support of those, then you were really not performing a Christian witness. Reverend Adams, if you appeared before that grand jury, how would you respond to that?

REV. JOHN ADAMS: Well, that question was not asked me. I did appear before that grand jury. The National Council of Churches attorneys did consult with the attorneys for Dr. Bowe, did consult with AIM attorneys, in other words, had counsel clear-crossed. But we were permitted to give testimony to a Assistant United States Attorney.

That question was not asked us. If it had been asked us, I think I could have answered it. One, is that we did perform some religious services. There were two instances in which I was asked to pray with persons on the inside of Wounded Knee. One was a person who had been wounded and was in the small little hospital they had.

I think there were other pastoral functions that I performed, and incidentally, not only with American Indians, but with agents of the government. I think I could spell that out. As an example, we had religious services every morning in the Episcopal Church of the Holy Cross in Pine Ridge, and we made it known around that these services were open. These were early in the morning on two occasions, there were persons from the government who were there in those services.

So I'm saying I wouldn't want, in any way, to discount the fact that we were making a traditional Christian witness. I think there are other ways to make witnesses. And many times, pastors or lay persons don't just have to verbalize the faith in order-- people know what you represent.

And your presence, say, in a hospital room, many times when I was a pastor and sitting beside someone who was dying, I may have prayed with them, but sometimes I just sat with them. And maybe that's all they wanted. But it represented something. And I trust that it represented something that called the depths of their Christian faith.

I don't think that you can condescendingly communicate with someone. Therefore, showing respect for what American Indians sense as their identity or the necessity for them to find their identity today is something that I want to recognize, and as much as I can understand.

That doesn't necessarily mean that even though I could certainly draw from the significance of much that they were doing and saying, no one was asking me to become a traditionalist in terms of, say, the Oglala Sioux religion.

SPEAKER: Many Indians at Wounded Knee felt, and I think you would agree that one of their grievances was-- one of the reasons for Wounded Knee was the presence of the missionaries, their activity, alleged land theft by the churches and so on. Did you feel at any time that you were part of the problem that you were trying to negotiate?

REV. JOHN ADAMS: Well, I think, there were times when I listened to severe criticism of the churches. Yes. And sometimes I was able to make some comments that I think wasn't necessarily argumentative, but I think helped to furnish some information that might have contributed to correcting certain impressions.

I think over a long history, it can't just be said that the church has sanctioned the exploitation of American Indians. There were missionaries who were very vocal and evangelical about justice for American Indians 100 years ago. Many of them lost their positions because they were so vocal. And some of them worked awfully hard to help effect the very treaties that today are being referred to by Indians as their protection.

That is a historical fact and could be documented. And I think that's-- that's part of the history and part of the story. I think it's also true that it's rather obvious that you go onto reservations and the presence of the church is probably second-only in terms of conspicuousness to the presence of the government.

I think the presence of the church is heavy, yes. That's not all negative. I don't think it's evaluated in every instance as being negative. But I'd have to say yes, I've listened to severe criticisms. And I think the church ought to take those criticisms very seriously.

In other words, today, I really believe that the kinds of grievances that are being articulated by American Indians ought to be heard, first of all, by the government, but very quickly thereafter, if not simultaneously too, by the churches, because I believe that the church can very well reexamine its mission and understand that there needs to be the utilization of its resource and its influence to help not just change governmental policy, but to support it, because often, government has good policy that can affect it, because there is an adequate political support for it from its constituency across the country.

And I think the church can be a part of that support. I think the government needs it as well as the American Indians.

SPEAKER: You've indicated that there is both valid and invalid criticism with respect to missionaries and Christian churches on American Indian reservations. Specifically, what valid criticisms do you see?

REV. JOHN ADAMS: Well, I think that's a very serious question. I would say that from my standpoint, a valid criticism would be that if the human needs, and I'd say, yes, physical needs, of American Indians are being overlooked or given such low priority, that the support of the institution becomes the highest priority, the support of the institution of the church.

Or that the perpetuation of a mission, as we have defined it, is given the highest priority, rather than what are the needs and what are the concerns of the American Indians who live there, I think that that would be a valid criticism. And the church is like other institutions. We become bureaucratically encumbered at every level, not just national level, but local levels.

SPEAKER: Is there a substance to the charge at this time that Christian churches on American Indian reservations continue to exploit American Indians? Is there any substance to that charge?

REV. JOHN ADAMS: I don't know about economic exploitation, if that's what's being said. That as I think you were implying, that there may have been the possession of lands illegally or by special privilege, by tribal council government or by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I really can't say because I have not researched that.

I think it is something to be researched, however, if the criticism is being made, then I think there needs to be a kind of a full disclosure by the religious institutions. What do we really have there? What is its function? What influence is it having? What effect does it really have upon the lives of those that the church is endeavoring to serve?

And I would want in good faith to say that and make an assumption, one to be tested, but an assumption that the church is there to serve. That really is what the church's function is. If it isn't doing that, then I think there needs to be not just re-examination but revision.

SPEAKER: When you talk about church service and human needs, I'm put in mind of the Father of an old Catholic priest who once told him as told to me by the son, the priest, that you can't really talk about by and by when people have got wrinkles on their tummy.

REV. JOHN ADAMS: I think that's true. I think that when the Lord's Prayer has as one of its first phrases, praying for daily bread, there are people that spiritualize that. But I believe that Christ was recognizing the importance of physical sustenance and daily.

And I think that where that's lacking there is-- and where it's not recognized as a need to be met-- that there we're not really serving. And I think that we shouldn't be saying, well, we will give you food if you become Christian, or that we'll help to meet your need if you identify with the church. I think that we need to work to meet the needs, and that in itself is a witness.

You can say a lot of things about the verity of the faith or the validity of the religion when you are also affecting the kinds of ministries that obviously Christ affected when he walked on this Earth.

SPEAKER: How did you get into this? Why are you interested in AIM, the American Indian Movement, American Indians, Wounded Knee? How did you get where you are?

REV. JOHN ADAMS: Well, I was a pastor for 20 years. And then we're assigned to churches. But I was assigned to our National Board of Church and Society, the headquarters of which is in Washington. And I was assigned to certain issues.

And it came at a period in our history-- I've been there seven years now-- It came at the end of the 1960s, which was really the culmination of certain social protests within our society, some of which erupted in urban civil disorders.

And so I was sent to many of those places to represent our church and to help support the responses that local churches and judicatories were making to those serious and critical events.

And so that's how I got into it. It progressed from there that I was assigned to one situation after another, kind of learning as I went.

SPEAKER: What draws you to it personally, besides the assignment, which obviously comes from a superior?

REV. JOHN ADAMS: Well, I really believe it's-- I consider it a ministry. And I consider I am called to it as much as I was called to any congregation to which I was sent as a pastor.

I really believe that I'm not wanting to mystify that particularly and say that I hear the Lord speaking words that I audibly can hear, but I spiritually and internally, I sense it very deeply, and sensed it specifically at points in Wounded Knee, I mean, in concrete ways that we were being led to do certain things.

Now, I have to also recognize that part of it comes out of some personal experience. During World War II, I was a bomber pilot and I was shot down and spent nine months in a prison camp, and for the first time in my life was hungry, lost 35, pounds, lived in fear. Our camp was often under some threat, and we were strafed even in captivity.

And I learned some things then that haven't forgotten. I know what it feels like to be hungry, very hungry, and not be able to have any way to meet that. In this country, there are people who have that experience. In a country that the president often says and just said again the other night in a press conference, we are the wealthiest nation on Earth and we are the most powerful nation on Earth. But there are persons in this country who do not have adequate food.

And when the president also said in his address to the Congress in July of 1970, his famous address related to American Indians, when he pointed out there that the health of American Indians lags 20 to 25 years behind the general population, and that the average age to which an Indian lives is 44 years of age, where the suicide rate is twice that of the population at large, where the unemployment rate on many reservations is 80%.

And on the average, reservation is 40%, where the income of American Indians is, as he put it, at the bottom of the rung of the ladder. When we start to recognize those kind of things, when we recognize also that the Federal Trade Commission in its survey published a few months ago, said that the prices on trading posts on the reservation are 27% above the national average.

What we're understanding is that Indians are often paying the highest of prices, with the lowest of incomes, with the least opportunity for employment, and that there is a desperate human crunch. Now, I think that I can have some sense because I still have a pretty well deeply etched memory of what it feels like. And that was temporary for me because the war eventually was over, and we were liberated.

And I came home. And I haven't been hungry since. Or at least if I were, it was because I chose to be. But there are many people who do not have that choice in this country, and I feel that--

SPEAKER: Do you think that we've gotten to a point where conditions are so desperate and the response is so slight from the government that it has become necessary to break laws in order to air issues?

REV. JOHN ADAMS: Well, I think the government is making greater responses than it has. I can't document that. But there are more programs to try to meet human needs now than there were a decade ago. But they're not adequate. That's the point.

And I think that the hopes of many people have been raised to the point where they see the potential and understand that there is the resource, and that they shouldn't tolerate their own needs. In other words, we can't just depend upon the apathy of people any longer. And we were depending upon it.

And I think that no longer will they accept a condition that they know can be changed. And I don't think we should ask them to accept it. And for that reason, I would say that unless we get the message, as I said earlier, then, yes, I believe that we can expect that laws will be broken in order that adequate attention will be given to something that they're saying.

SPEAKER: That was the Reverend John Adams, National Council of Churches negotiator at Wounded Knee.