"The Deadliest Enemies": Law and the Making of Race Relations on and off Rosebud Reservation

Abstract

Thomas Biolsi, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.Reviewer: Tony FisherUniversity of AlbertaDeadliest Enemies is an excellent book. It's not perfect, but then, no really good anthropology book is. Deadliest Enemies begins well. The Introduction introduces us to things we should know but probably don't. Chapter 1 is a good, brief review of Reservation's history and how its present legal status or conundrum came to be. The book carries on through four chapters focused primarily on specific cases and their associated legal issues. The final chapter and conclusion point to impact of Indian law discourse.Biolsi does a good job of keeping lawsuits and circumstances which lead to lawsuit, circumstances surrounding trial and outcome of suit, in picture. This is very important because Sicangu Lakota (or Rosebud Sioux Tribe) must fight complex legal-political battles on alien ground. An 'alien ground' which is chimerical too.The ground is owned by Sicangu Lakota (whose nationhood is denied). But, their homeland is actually held by people who are contesting legal-political issues with them. And contest is in alien courtrooms and legalese, alien to Lakota.As Biolsi says early on, a central theme of this book is contradiction and indeterminancy that lies at heart of discourse of federal Indian law--as well as consequences of this for Indian-White relations (p. 11). The origins of contradiction lie in legal (and mythical) charter of United States itself. The Declaration of Independence contains a statement of rights of man from which it excludes merciless Indian savages among whom might be Sicangu Lakota. Another of origins is further exclusion of the natives, who were heathens as aliens from American humanity by Chief Justice John Marshall (p. 12).Then, U.S. Congress excluded not taxed from citizenship, when it gave citizenship to former slaves, and then, Supreme Court of United States kept individual Indians from citizenship, even it they had dropped their tribal affiliation (Ibid.). This was case notwithstanding having ruled, Indian Nations were not real nations, but denominated domestic dependent nations (p. 13). To Canadians this may sound familiar. It is similar to views expressed by Premier Gordon Campbell, of British Columbia, regarding First Nations of Province and their Treaties.These exclusions are crucial. …