The governor wants to see elected tribal leadership have stronger leadership and redirect Washington influence that?s so dominant in their life. He?s against violence that occurred. AIM has called for tourist boycott, this hasn?t had any effect on the state but will have harmful effect on Indian people themselves. He rejects that South Dakota is Mississippi of the North. Says racial prejudice and injustice are part of society everywhere. Thinks racism is less in the state than other places. He doesn?t look down on anyone, any color, each should be judged on own merits. Prejudicial thinking comes from an early stage in life. If you strengthen your family life you will strengthen society and stop prejudices. He says low income and downtrodden people are in penitentiary, can?t gain legal means to stay out of that institution. Average Indian in state is in that category, not because of white people but because of ?an allowance to live under substandard conditions because of a guarantee and existence of a federal structure which is basically wrong.?
Transcripts
text | pdf |
SPEAKER 1: It's just one. And I can think of a far better one. I'd like to see the elected tribal leadership maintain a stronger position. And through their elected tribal leadership positions and within the councils, redirect the activities of those reservations, and redirect the activities of people in Washington that are so dominant in their life and their structure.
SPEAKER 2: Well, I guess what I'm getting at is, do you think that, ironically, without some of the incidents which have erupted into violence in the state of South Dakota, there might have been some of these changes?
SPEAKER 1: No. I won't accept under any circumstances the fact of violence as a way of reaching that end. There are many historians that will tell you that that's how it comes about. And they'll practice that means. But I won't, because I think it could have been done through non-violent means and the same or better ends met through that route.
SPEAKER 2: AIM has called a national tourist boycott of South Dakota. And I know that tourism is one of your most important industries here in South Dakota. Has that had any effect in the last couple of years?
SPEAKER 1: No. I can't say that it has. And I think it's going to harm them overall, because in the course of calling for a boycott, there simply won't be a boycott in areas outside the reservation areas. So if it's to have any effect, it'll have an effect on the Indian people themselves and a harmful effect and therefore no beneficial effect for overall for the Indian people.
SPEAKER 2: Overall, Governor, you would reject the notion that in 1975, the South Dakota treatment of Indian people parallels that, say, of Mississippi against Black people in the '60s and the '50s?
SPEAKER 1: Oh boy, if there's anything I'd like to reject, it's the one thought I heard placed throughout this country at one point, and that is that South Dakota was a Mississippi of the North. That is so inaccurate and so wrong that I can't even make a proper correlation or parallel. I'm not sure what they-- I've heard stories about the South, and maybe that's what they are.
Maybe they're not quite as bad as what we heard either, or maybe the people in the South and the North and the West and the East that are hearing stories about our people, I hope they don't believe it, because I don't believe it's that bad. And while I recognize racial prejudice and racial injustice as a part of society everywhere, not to that extent, and I can't buy it.
SPEAKER 2: You don't feel that racism here with respect to Indian people is any greater than any other state?
SPEAKER 1: No. I think it's perhaps less. I think that the average person in this state-- take White people, if you want to classify it that way, dealing with Indians. I think that while there are people that do hold prejudice in their hearts, that to the greatest extent, our people are perhaps more permissive and more warm and friendly one towards the other than most states. I guess I'd like some recognition of that.
I can't find it within my heart to look down on anyone, whether they be yellow, black, white, colored or whatever. I think each of us is to be judged on our own merits. And that isn't a part really of teaching. That's a part of living. That kind of thought comes from what I call family life. My dad would have knocked me down on the street if I'd have ever thought I was better than someone else.
So I think that's something that's inbred, and it comes from a very early stage in life and really from what I would call family life and the strength of family life. And so people that hold the prejudices within their hearts in any state in this union, it probably started in that way. It probably started as a very young person listening to someone in a family make some wild, ridiculous statement. Thankfully, they weren't made in my family. And I guess my recommendation to the people of this state and to the people of this country is that as you strengthen your family life ties, you'll strengthen society, and you'll stop the prejudices.
SPEAKER 2: I guess the most difficult thing in that light for other people outside of South Dakota to understand with respect to Indians here in the state, is the fact that a per capita number of Indians is much greater in the South Dakota prisons. That the annual Indian income, a median annual income for a family is something like $1,500. That the suicide rate for South Dakota Indians is something like 20 times the National average. There is a great deal of alcoholism, a great deal of hopelessness and poverty.
SPEAKER 1: And that's precisely why I pointed to the structure as perpetrated by the federal government, the structure under which they exist by choice, not through actions on the part of White people here in South Dakota, but by virtue of treaties long passed and by virtue of the fact that if the average person out there is very low income. And if he's living on a check as given by a governmental structure, that promotes things like alcoholism and all the rest. And that might write a bad check and end up in the penitentiary.
I think your percentages and your statistics will hold true everywhere. It's the low-income people and it's the downtrodden people that are in the penitentiary that aren't able to gain the legal means through which even after committing a crime, they could somehow stay out of that institution. You're right. The average Indian in South Dakota is in that category, but not because of the White people in South Dakota, but because of an allowance to live under substandard conditions because of a guarantee and an existence with the federal structure, which is basically wrong.