Identity and Sovereignty
by Daniel Glenn
Issues of identity and tribal sovereignty – often intertwined together – have shaped the experiences of the Alabama-Coushatta throughout their past. Since the creation of the Republic of Texas in 1836, however, when they found themselves not just on the edges of empire but within the borders of another people’s nation, the Alabama-Coushatta have struggled to gain and maintain control over their land, lives, and culture. In their efforts to navigate the structures of power within the American political, economic, and bureaucratic systems the Alabama-Coushatta have had to adopt a flexible form of Indigenous identity. In other words, in order to preserve their tribal distinctiveness and sovereignty the Alabama-Coushatta had to present an image of themselves that was more or less “Indian” as the situation warranted.[1]
Brief History of the Alabama-Coushatta
The Alabama-Coushatta are two different groups who occupy one reservation in eastern Texas and, according to the terms of the 1987 federal law which re-recognized their tribal status, have one tribal government. Long before Hernando de Soto led a Spanish expedition through what are now the Southern states in 1539, the Albamo and Koasati lived in the reaches of the Alabama and Tombigbee River Valleys. Although they did not live contiguously they shared a common origin, according to their own historical tradition, having emerged from a cave as one group before separating.[2] In the wake of the demographic devastation caused by the Spaniards’ diseases and use of military force, the peoples in the region including the Albamo and Koasati constructed the Creek Confederacy.[3]
It was as members of the Upper Creeks that they established ties to Spanish, French, and English traders. The Spanish had established outposts in Florida, while the French built a fort in Mobile Bay in 1702 and the English settlers in Virginia and the Carolinas sent trading expeditions westward into the Appalachian foothills. Among other things, European traders exchanged manufactured goods and tools for deer pelts and Indian slaves. Yet, rather than abandoning their traditional culture for one that offered superior technology, indigenous peoples like the Albamo and Koasati incorporated these goods into their lifeways.[4] Exchange itself was not merely an economic undertaking. For the Albamo and Koasati exchange created and maintained kinship bonds that enmeshed each party in a web of reciprocal responsibilities.[5]
Understanding this makes it easier to comprehend why the Albamo and Koasati departed their traditional homelands in the aftermath of the French and Indian War (1754-1760). Since as early as the Yamasee War (1715-1718 ), when their slaving and land grabbing had provoked conflict with the coastal tribes in Carolina, the English appeared to have the least regard for respecting the customs of tribal people.[6] When the French formally ceded their claims to the land in 1763, many of the two tribes’ members migrated westward to Louisiana and Texas to stay close to the Spanish. Others relocated to Florida.[7]
It was as members of the Upper Creeks that they established ties to Spanish, French, and English traders. The Spanish had established outposts in Florida, while the French built a fort in Mobile Bay in 1702 and the English settlers in Virginia and the Carolinas sent trading expeditions westward into the Appalachian foothills. Among other things, European traders exchanged manufactured goods and tools for deer pelts and Indian slaves. Yet, rather than abandoning their traditional culture for one that offered superior technology, indigenous peoples like the Albamo and Koasati incorporated these goods into their lifeways.[4] Exchange itself was not merely an economic undertaking. For the Albamo and Koasati exchange created and maintained kinship bonds that enmeshed each party in a web of reciprocal responsibilities.[5]
Understanding this makes it easier to comprehend why the Albamo and Koasati departed their traditional homelands in the aftermath of the French and Indian War (1754-1760). Since as early as the Yamasee War (1715-1718 ), when their slaving and land grabbing had provoked conflict with the coastal tribes in Carolina, the English appeared to have the least regard for respecting the customs of tribal people.[6] When the French formally ceded their claims to the land in 1763, many of the two tribes’ members migrated westward to Louisiana and Texas to stay close to the Spanish. Others relocated to Florida.[7]
The moves delayed but did not elude the effects of colonization by Anglo-Americans. While Creeks who remained in Alabama and Georgia struggled in the years following the American Revolution to adopt to a world of written laws and private property, the western Albamo and Koasati had to adapt to unfamiliar environments and disconnection from their kin with whom they shared recurrent and important religious and social rituals.[8]
By 1807, Anglo-American colonization was once again on their doorsteps, and once again they decided on courses of action that were intended to minimize their loss of sovereignty. In that year two clashes with American settlers reveal the alternate paths the Albamo and Koasati took to achieve the same ends. In the first, a white man slayed a Koasati man. When American authorities appeared unwilling to hand over the killer, a Koasati named Siache retaliated by murdering a white man himself. Several months later, in the second incident, four Albamo men slew a white man.
The American Indian agent demanded both tribes surrender the accused. And while the Albamo did, the Koasati chose to relocate their village to Texas.[9] Both tribes chose the path that seemed best suited to keep American authority over them at bay. By handing over the four accused men, and complying with Americans’ sense of justice the Albamo likely hoped the matter would be settled once and for all. By departing for Texas, the Koasati trusted in physical distance as a guarantor of sovereignty. Perhaps recognizing the sagacity of this decision, more Albamo and Koasati relocated to the Big Thicket area of Texas.
In the early nineteenth century, however, Texas was anything but stable. Purportedly under Spanish then Mexican rule, Texas was really the domain of the Comanche who tolerated the presence of other peoples, Hispanic or indigenous, only if they served the purposes of the Comanche.[10] As more Anglo-Americans arrived attracted by cheap land and the chance to grow cotton clashes with the Comanche predictably occurred. The newly independent Mexican Republic’s inability to protect its citizens in its far northeastern frontier provided momentum for the 1835 Texas revolt.[11]
Once again to maintain their sovereignty the Albamo and Koasati found themselves having to maneuver through what is best described as a struggle between three powers in Texas. Alternatively, they provided food to Texans fleeing from General Santa Anna’s approaching army, entertained appeals for assistance from emissaries from the Texas government, fought the Comanche, and joined other tribal people raiding Texas settlements. When Texas, which had ultimately won the contest of powers, implemented policies to expel nearly all indigenous people from its borders, the Albamo and Koasati chartered a new course for self-preservation by minimizing conflict with their Anglo-American neighbors and reminding them of how the tribes had come to their aid during the Runaway Scrape.
By 1807, Anglo-American colonization was once again on their doorsteps, and once again they decided on courses of action that were intended to minimize their loss of sovereignty. In that year two clashes with American settlers reveal the alternate paths the Albamo and Koasati took to achieve the same ends. In the first, a white man slayed a Koasati man. When American authorities appeared unwilling to hand over the killer, a Koasati named Siache retaliated by murdering a white man himself. Several months later, in the second incident, four Albamo men slew a white man.
The American Indian agent demanded both tribes surrender the accused. And while the Albamo did, the Koasati chose to relocate their village to Texas.[9] Both tribes chose the path that seemed best suited to keep American authority over them at bay. By handing over the four accused men, and complying with Americans’ sense of justice the Albamo likely hoped the matter would be settled once and for all. By departing for Texas, the Koasati trusted in physical distance as a guarantor of sovereignty. Perhaps recognizing the sagacity of this decision, more Albamo and Koasati relocated to the Big Thicket area of Texas.
In the early nineteenth century, however, Texas was anything but stable. Purportedly under Spanish then Mexican rule, Texas was really the domain of the Comanche who tolerated the presence of other peoples, Hispanic or indigenous, only if they served the purposes of the Comanche.[10] As more Anglo-Americans arrived attracted by cheap land and the chance to grow cotton clashes with the Comanche predictably occurred. The newly independent Mexican Republic’s inability to protect its citizens in its far northeastern frontier provided momentum for the 1835 Texas revolt.[11]
Once again to maintain their sovereignty the Albamo and Koasati found themselves having to maneuver through what is best described as a struggle between three powers in Texas. Alternatively, they provided food to Texans fleeing from General Santa Anna’s approaching army, entertained appeals for assistance from emissaries from the Texas government, fought the Comanche, and joined other tribal people raiding Texas settlements. When Texas, which had ultimately won the contest of powers, implemented policies to expel nearly all indigenous people from its borders, the Albamo and Koasati chartered a new course for self-preservation by minimizing conflict with their Anglo-American neighbors and reminding them of how the tribes had come to their aid during the Runaway Scrape.
More than once tribal members chose to relocate rather than resist when white people squatted on their land.[12] But the ultimate success of these policies can be seen in the fact that not only did Texas not remove them, but after two decades of indecisive action it granted the Albamo a reservation in Polk County. The state failed to fulfill its promise to grant 640 acres to the Koasati, however, and most settled with the Albamo.
Since then the Albamo and Koasati, now officially known as the Alabama-Coushatta, have striven to sustain their sovereignty, culture, and traditions in the face of substantial transformations of the society and economy around them. Encroaching farms removed much of the wooded lands, needed for hunting and gathering, near the reservation, and forced the tribe into the market economy in the late 1800s.
This also marked the beginning of an important transformation in their conception of sovereignty – from political self-determination to economic self-sustainment. Needing a way to make ends meet, some turned to picking cotton and logging. In the twentieth century oil and gas drilling and reservation tourism offered what seemed like long-term economic security. Yet, as tourism declined in the 1980s, the tribe found themselves once again searching for solutions. After contemplating permitting a hazardous waste incinerator to be located on the reservation, they instead decided on a solid waste facility. Later they added a tobacco products store, and in 2001 they operated a casino for a few months.
Since then the Albamo and Koasati, now officially known as the Alabama-Coushatta, have striven to sustain their sovereignty, culture, and traditions in the face of substantial transformations of the society and economy around them. Encroaching farms removed much of the wooded lands, needed for hunting and gathering, near the reservation, and forced the tribe into the market economy in the late 1800s.
This also marked the beginning of an important transformation in their conception of sovereignty – from political self-determination to economic self-sustainment. Needing a way to make ends meet, some turned to picking cotton and logging. In the twentieth century oil and gas drilling and reservation tourism offered what seemed like long-term economic security. Yet, as tourism declined in the 1980s, the tribe found themselves once again searching for solutions. After contemplating permitting a hazardous waste incinerator to be located on the reservation, they instead decided on a solid waste facility. Later they added a tobacco products store, and in 2001 they operated a casino for a few months.
Location of the Alabama-Coushatta Reservation
Identity
In We Talk, You Listen Vine Deloria, Jr., the famous Standing Rock Sioux intellectual activist, wrote “Tribal society is of such a nature that one must experience it from the inside…Being inside a tribal universe is so comfortable and reasonable that it acts like a narcotic.” [13] What tribal society offers is a completely different way to understand life, time, creation, and the place of humans within it. And this distinction lays at the heart of the tribal identity.
In 1980 Russell Means offered this clarification: “Humans are the weakest of all creatures, so weak that other creatures are willing to give up their flesh that we may live...We pray our thanks to the deer, our relations, for allowing us their flesh to eat; Europeans simply take the flesh for granted and consider the deer inferior. After all, Europeans consider themselves godlike in their rationalism and science.” What Western culture describes as intellectual and scientific progress, he asserted, served “to abstract the European mentality even further, to remove the wonderful complexity and spirituality from the universe and replace it with a logical sequence: one, two, three. Answer!” [14]
The cultural gulf that separates the tribal from the Western worldview produced significant consequences. For as long as people of European descent have been in contact with the indigenous peoples of North America they have believed them to be not quite fully formed humans essentially. This opinion led to the development of competing images of them as either inveterate brutes, malleable primitives, or noble but doomed savages.
In 1980 Russell Means offered this clarification: “Humans are the weakest of all creatures, so weak that other creatures are willing to give up their flesh that we may live...We pray our thanks to the deer, our relations, for allowing us their flesh to eat; Europeans simply take the flesh for granted and consider the deer inferior. After all, Europeans consider themselves godlike in their rationalism and science.” What Western culture describes as intellectual and scientific progress, he asserted, served “to abstract the European mentality even further, to remove the wonderful complexity and spirituality from the universe and replace it with a logical sequence: one, two, three. Answer!” [14]
The cultural gulf that separates the tribal from the Western worldview produced significant consequences. For as long as people of European descent have been in contact with the indigenous peoples of North America they have believed them to be not quite fully formed humans essentially. This opinion led to the development of competing images of them as either inveterate brutes, malleable primitives, or noble but doomed savages.
Influenced by the persistence of these archetypes the United States government’s policy toward indigenous people followed three corresponding courses: annihilation, assimilation, and neglect. The Removal Act of 1830, the Dawes Act of 1887, the massacre at Wounded Knee in 1890, and the Termination Policy of the mid-twentieth century each illustrate another effort to solve the “plight” of tribal peoples. [16]
Yet, the failure of policy makers to recognize the fallacy of the archetypes or be mindful of the tribal worldview ensured that their programs failed as well. Whether well-intentioned or not, most of the government’s policies required indigenous people to actively or passively commit cultural suicide. [17]
Indigenous people lacked the power to completely ignore the policies, however, and so they had to find at least go through the motions of complying in ways that still preserved their identity and sovereignty. For the Alabama-Coushatta this has meant creating a legal standard for tribal membership, for instance, as well as passing along their language, oral traditions, crafts, and lifeways.
Ironically, it is the reservation that helps to sustain these customs. Although long a contested space, the reservation preserved a place for indigenous leadership, entrepreneurship, decision making, and culture. The economic viability of the reservation, therefore, represents much more than jobs, homes, and material wealth. It means not having to choose between identity and prosperity.
Yet, the failure of policy makers to recognize the fallacy of the archetypes or be mindful of the tribal worldview ensured that their programs failed as well. Whether well-intentioned or not, most of the government’s policies required indigenous people to actively or passively commit cultural suicide. [17]
Indigenous people lacked the power to completely ignore the policies, however, and so they had to find at least go through the motions of complying in ways that still preserved their identity and sovereignty. For the Alabama-Coushatta this has meant creating a legal standard for tribal membership, for instance, as well as passing along their language, oral traditions, crafts, and lifeways.
Ironically, it is the reservation that helps to sustain these customs. Although long a contested space, the reservation preserved a place for indigenous leadership, entrepreneurship, decision making, and culture. The economic viability of the reservation, therefore, represents much more than jobs, homes, and material wealth. It means not having to choose between identity and prosperity.
Endnotes
[1] For more on the significance of the colonized nature of Indigenous peoples in North America, see Angela Cavender Wilson and Eli Taylor, Remember This!: Dakota Decolonization and the Eli Taylor Narratives (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2005).
[2] For more on the oral histories and stories of the Alabama-Coushatta see Howard N. Martin, Myths and Folktales of the Alabama-Coushatta Indians of Texas (Austin: Encino Press, 1977).
[3] Epidemics of disease had struck the region even before De Soto had set foot in America. Pathogens had spread north and westward from Spanish-held Mexico. Both the Albamo and the Koasati resisted de Soto’s demands for food, slaves, and women, which resulted in conflicts including a skirmish with the “Alimamu” on 26 April 1541. For more on the cultural devastation and relocation caused by epidemics to the indigenous peoples of the Southeast, see James H. Merrell, The Indians’ New World: The Catawbas and their Neighbors from European Contact through the Era of Removal (New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 1989), 19 – 27. For a matter-of-fact eyewitness account, see True Relation of the Vicissitudes That Attended the Governor Don Hernando de Soto and Some Nobles of Portugal in the Discovery of the Province of Florida Now Just Given by a Fildalgo of Elvas, (1557).
[4] For more on the persistent myth of indigenous dependency on European technology, see Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 482-5. White argues that “mere reliance” on European tools did not equate to an inability to survive without them.
[5] See White, The Middle Ground, 97.
[6] Merrell, The Indians’ New World, 65-6.
[7] Barry Pritzker, Native Americans : An Encyclopedia of History, Culture, and People (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1998), 524, eBook Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2013).
[8] Claudio Saunt, A New Order of Things: Property, Power, and the Transformation of the Creek Indians, 1733-1816 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 164-185; Stephanie May, “Alabama and Coushatta,” in Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 14, ed.William Sturtevant (Washington: Smithsonian Institute, 2004), 409.
[9] Jonathan B. Hook, Alabama - Coushatta Indians (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1997), 30, EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2013). Two of the four accused Albamo men were executed; the other two were pardoned.
[10] Pekka Hämäläinen, The Comanche Empire (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008).
[11] Hämäläinen, 199-201. This is not to say that this was the only reason for Texans’ frustration with the Mexican government.
[12] Hook, Alabama-Coushatta Indians, 32-3.
[13] Vine Deloria, Jr. We Talk, You Listen: New Tribes, New Turf (New York: Macmillan, 1970; Lincoln, NE: Bison Books, 2007), 12.
[14] Russell Means, Speeches, “For America to Live, Europe Must Die,” www.russellmeans.com, accessed 30 April 2013.
[15] In his 1969 work, Custer Died for Your Sins, Deloria sardonically remarks that “Traditionally…Indians have had a ‘plight.’” Deloria, Custer Died for Your Sins (New York: Macmillan, 1969), 1.
[16] For an overview of just one of these policies – Indian Boarding Schools – see David Wallace Adams, Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875-1928 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995).
[2] For more on the oral histories and stories of the Alabama-Coushatta see Howard N. Martin, Myths and Folktales of the Alabama-Coushatta Indians of Texas (Austin: Encino Press, 1977).
[3] Epidemics of disease had struck the region even before De Soto had set foot in America. Pathogens had spread north and westward from Spanish-held Mexico. Both the Albamo and the Koasati resisted de Soto’s demands for food, slaves, and women, which resulted in conflicts including a skirmish with the “Alimamu” on 26 April 1541. For more on the cultural devastation and relocation caused by epidemics to the indigenous peoples of the Southeast, see James H. Merrell, The Indians’ New World: The Catawbas and their Neighbors from European Contact through the Era of Removal (New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 1989), 19 – 27. For a matter-of-fact eyewitness account, see True Relation of the Vicissitudes That Attended the Governor Don Hernando de Soto and Some Nobles of Portugal in the Discovery of the Province of Florida Now Just Given by a Fildalgo of Elvas, (1557).
[4] For more on the persistent myth of indigenous dependency on European technology, see Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 482-5. White argues that “mere reliance” on European tools did not equate to an inability to survive without them.
[5] See White, The Middle Ground, 97.
[6] Merrell, The Indians’ New World, 65-6.
[7] Barry Pritzker, Native Americans : An Encyclopedia of History, Culture, and People (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1998), 524, eBook Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2013).
[8] Claudio Saunt, A New Order of Things: Property, Power, and the Transformation of the Creek Indians, 1733-1816 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 164-185; Stephanie May, “Alabama and Coushatta,” in Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 14, ed.William Sturtevant (Washington: Smithsonian Institute, 2004), 409.
[9] Jonathan B. Hook, Alabama - Coushatta Indians (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1997), 30, EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2013). Two of the four accused Albamo men were executed; the other two were pardoned.
[10] Pekka Hämäläinen, The Comanche Empire (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008).
[11] Hämäläinen, 199-201. This is not to say that this was the only reason for Texans’ frustration with the Mexican government.
[12] Hook, Alabama-Coushatta Indians, 32-3.
[13] Vine Deloria, Jr. We Talk, You Listen: New Tribes, New Turf (New York: Macmillan, 1970; Lincoln, NE: Bison Books, 2007), 12.
[14] Russell Means, Speeches, “For America to Live, Europe Must Die,” www.russellmeans.com, accessed 30 April 2013.
[15] In his 1969 work, Custer Died for Your Sins, Deloria sardonically remarks that “Traditionally…Indians have had a ‘plight.’” Deloria, Custer Died for Your Sins (New York: Macmillan, 1969), 1.
[16] For an overview of just one of these policies – Indian Boarding Schools – see David Wallace Adams, Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875-1928 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995).