Constructing a Nativity: The Crèche of the Debate

Ever since Europeans made their first contact with 'Indians,' their political relationships have been unsteady and, often, one-sided. From Jamestown and onward, European settlers quelled land claims of prior ownership by fighting Indian history with colonial modernity. Assimilation was favored over coexistence, manifest destiny was favored over the defined borders of the Proclamation of 1763, and trails of tears were favored over negotiated resettlement (Samson in Cowan 243). Now, under reexamination, such practices seem undemocratic and illegal. Unfortunately, even the perspectives of democracy and law are biased against native cultures through their inherent ties to Western Liberalism (228). In order to form truly equitable agreements with indigenous people, lawmakers need to modify their discourse to better suit different cultural perspectives. Short of this solution, indigenous peoples must better exploit the modern paradigms that have been forced on them.

State institutions have always constructed the subjective category of the "native" to suit their needs. Invaders in tribal lands, settlers and their governments ruled over native populations with a self-endowed sovereignty. As armed resistance was a "dubious strategy" proven so at the Little Bighorn, native groups have had little choice but to cede their autonomy through treaties and agreements, implicitly agreeing to state constructs of indigeneity (Niezen 121). These constructs have, well into the last half of the 20^th century, implied a backwardness on the part of indigenous cultures and a plan for assimilation on the part of the state governments (120).