[In the following essay, Washburn asserts that in The Nations Within, "When all is said and done, Deloria and Lytle, while not providing a practical solution to the Indian future, have laid the basis for a more mature consideration of that future by Indian tribal leaders."]

Vine Deloria, Jr.! The name—to some contemporary white Americans—conjures up emotions similar to those raised in the nineteenth century by the names Geronimo and Red Cloud. For many years Deloria, with his pen (and now with his word processor), has struck terror in the hearts of snooping anthropologists, guilt-laden editorial writers, obtuse historians, and others who grapple with the contemporary or historical Indian, whether as an economic "problem," a literary symbol, or a political force.

The secret of Deloria's success in becoming the preeminent Indian spokesman is his inexhaustible energy, his wry good humor, his not inconsiderable scholarly gifts, and his diplomatic skill. Deloria has his detractors among Indians and whites, but his critics have had amazingly little success at shaking his self-confidence or denting his reputation. In the present volume, [The Nations Within: The Past and Future of American Indian Sovereignty,] as in the earlier American Indians, American Justice, Deloria shares author credit with Clifford M. Lytle, his colleague in the Department of Political Science at the University of Arizona. The partnership, unequal though it may be, is fruitful. Lytle's participation seems to have added depth and responsibility to the sparkling, cynical, but often careless approach that characterized some of Deloria's earlier works, such as Custer Died for Your Sins.

There are two books here. One, sober and scholarly, deals with the Indian past; the other, imaginative and speculative, deals with the Indian future. The first "book" is a detailed consideration of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934; the second deals with the recent and as yet not fully defined Indian struggle for a new identity. The two sections are appropriately joined under the felicitously chosen title The Nations Within, which signifies both the achievement of self-government under the Indian Reorganization Act and the current movement toward a national (and international) Indian identity.

The first part—a well-researched, general study of the bill that, under the guidance of Commissioner of Indian Affairs John Collier, completely reoriented the federal government's conduct of Indian affairs fifty years ago—does not seek to match the scholarly detail of earlier studies of Collier and the Indian Reorganization Act by such scholars as Kenneth Philp, Lawrence Kelly, and Graham Taylor. But while The Nations Within is popular and readable, it is not unscholarly except where the reader is asked to accept on faith the authors' attribution of motives. For example, the authors allege that Sen. Sam Ervin attached the Indian Civil Rights Bill to a fair housing bill in 1968 in order to kill the housing bill—a strategy that, if it did exist, was unsuccessful. This speculation is presented without any citation of authority or tangible proof. Some will accept the authority of Deloria on such matters because of the prominent role he played as executive director of the National Congress of American Indians from 1964 to 1967 and because of his influential role and continuing access to both Indian and white political leaders before and after his tenure as head of this organization. But such personal reminiscences are unreliable guides to the past; they smack too much of the journalist's shaky sources, which may be the raw material but not the substance of history.

In contemporary America the journalist's role is often that of advocate, and Deloria and Lytle have too openly assumed this role. This is particularly true when they move on to consideration of a "movement toward nationality" on the part of Indian tribes.

Because special interest, sympathy, and guilt are inextricably mixed in all considerations of the American Indian, it is difficult to obtain an unemotional, realistic, and impartial assessment of such a volatile subject as Indian sovereignty. Despite their sophistication, the authors fall into the trap of judging John Collier's achievement (in getting Congress to pass the Indian Reorganization Act, which established the legitimacy and defined the powers of Indian self-government as an integral part of the law of the land) by an ideal, rather than a practical, standard. Collier is judged, not by what he wrested for the Indians from a sometimes uncomprehending, sometimes skeptical Congress, but by what he failed to obtain, such as a formal declaration of Indian political sovereignty. Neither Deloria nor other critics of Collier consider the probable fate that Collier averted: the total destruction of Indian tribal identity and sovereignty. To say that Collier's legislative struggle "in most respects represented a solid defeat" because the final version differed radically from the original proposal is to miss the forest for the trees.

The publisher claims that, in addition to their analysis of the Indian Reorganization Act,

Deloria and Lytle trace the rise of Indian militancy and the decline of tribal government into near welfare-agency status, and show the political effects of Reagan's crippling budget cuts. They conclude with a set of sound proposals that take into account current economic realities while suggesting how traditional institutions can be used to resurrect sovereignty today.

Alas, if only publishers' blurbs would correspond to objective truth! Deloria and Lytle give a too-sympathetic account of the militant activities of the American Indian Movement (AIM) radicals at Wounded Knee and elsewhere, but fail to demonstrate that these actions have advanced the cause of Indian nationhood and sovereignty. The authors ignore the "work" of Leonard Peltier (about whom Peter Matthiessen wrote an entire book, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, in 1983), the AIM activist currently in prison for shooting two FBI agents at Wounded Knee in 1973. Peltier has virtually become a patron saint of AIM, and his plight has been cited by the Soviet Union to blunt Western criticism of Soviet treatment of Andrei Sakharov.

Neither do the authors of The Nations Within do more than allude to the radicals' indictment of the United States for alleged crimes against humanity, such as genocide and sterilization of Indian women, before the Russell International Tribunal. Deloria is too honest a scholar and too sophisticated a politician to defend the radical Indian positions on such issues, which have little or no merit. Yet he makes use of the radical rhetoric to express the vague hope of Indian leaders such as himself for an evolution of Indian self-government into full Indian "nationhood."

Deloria is equally vague as to the practical steps that must be taken before Indian nationhood is achieved. He wistfully alludes to the "famous Twenty Points" (of which he was a principal author) presented to White House officials Leonard Garment and Bradley Patterson during the 1972 election-week March on Washington. These points, which included restoration of constitutional treaty-making authority and the provision that all Indians be governed by treaty relations, were so totally out of touch with reality that they had no chance of influencing the debate on Indian policy. After trashing the Bureau of Indian Affairs (which now, as a cautionary measure, no longer exists as a separate, identifiable entity in Washington), the 1972 protesters and looters were provided tickets, at taxpayer expense, to return home. Had Collier not erected such a powerful protective shield around Indian tribes by engineering the passage of the Indian Reorganization Act, the white backlash that followed this ill-conceived "protest" would probably have eliminated whatever remnants of tribal self-government had continued to exist.

Equally futile were the 206 recommendations issued in 1977 by the American Indian Policy Review Commission—staffed almost exclusively by American Indians—whose principal recommendation, as Deloria wryly notes, was for "more money." It seems never to have occurred to the Indian leadership—such as it was and is—that recommendations designed to wring power, money, and support from the non-Indian majority of the country must have some relationship to political reality.

Deloria and Lytle fail to provide specific recommendations for smoothing the route from self-government to nationhood. The authors call for retention of Indian cultural values, reconciliation of factional elements within Indian communities, and so on, but leave largely unspecified the nature of the Indian identity, economic system, and political character that is expected to emerge. Recommendations are phrased in party convention language, to encompass everything, please everyone, and offend no one. Thus Deloria and Lytle assert that "relations between the tribe and the federal and state governments must be stabilized, and mutual respect and parity in political rights must be established." Yet the authors are belittling in their references to the "government-to-government relationship" that underlies President Reagan's Indian policy. The authors assert incorrectly that "the ideology generally adopted by Republican administrations … makes Indians wards of the government…."

Deloria and Lytle also seem to think that by calling something by a different name, one creates a different reality. Calling a tribal council a national council does not maximize tribal sovereignty (even if one expands the membership) or cause it to be exercised "in a more comprehensive manner." Calling policemen peace officers does not constitute a "structural recasting of the police function." Resolving the real differences between "traditional" and modern Indian tribal governments cannot be accomplished with pious platitudes or easy criticism of elected tribal officials. Most curiously, the authors do not seem to have a substitute for elective government by majority rule, the bête noire of the traditionals and radicals.

Indian claims against the U.S. government, adjudicated by the Indian Claims Commission, Court of Claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court, constitute particularly sensitive issues among Indian leaders. Of all the land claims, the Sioux claim is the most famous. The Sioux are still divided on the question of whether to accept the 1980 Supreme Court decision replacing a series of earlier judicial determinations of the amount of compensation the United States owes the Sioux for the taking of the Black Hills over a century ago. Deloria, a Sioux, does not tell us where he stands on the issue, preferring instead to straddle it. As he notes, "Claims are both satisfying in terms of fulfilling ancient promises and disruptive in that they take an inordinate amount of time and energy away from other reservation activities that would be more profitable in the long run."

When all is said and done, Deloria and Lytle, while not providing a practical solution to the Indian future, have laid the basis for a more mature consideration of that future by Indian tribal leaders. They have done this, first of all, by providing a well-written and basically accurate consideration of the Indian Reorganization Act. They grudgingly give John Collier credit for what he did accomplish, even while chiding him for not doing more. Secondly, they recognize that the act is the fundamental and indispensable foundation on which the movement toward Indian nationhood, if it is ever to occur, must be built. Thirdly, they point out that a successful movement toward nationhood for all Indian tribes must be sustained by rhetoric that is pro-Indian rather than anti-white. "Self-determination involves having a responsible group that has pride in itself but does not generate this pride by pointing out the shortcomings of other groups."

The Nations Within takes a significant step toward creating this responsible approach. Whether the Indian nations will achieve the full extent of the sovereignty that the authors visualize is, however, doubtful.