The ancient punishment of banishment is alive and well among certain Indian tribes:
[A] growing number of tribes across the country, desperate to slow the wounds of drug and alcohol abuse, gambling, poverty and violence, have used banishment in varying forms in the last decade. Tribal leaders see this ancient response, which reflects Indian respect for community, as a painful but necessary deterrent.
. . . .
The rate of alcohol-related deaths among Indians was seven times that of the national average in 2002, according to the latest data from Indian Health Services, an agency within the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
. . . .
“It’s out of desperation,” said Doug George-Kanentiio, who is a journalist for News From Indian Country, a national newspaper, and a member of the six nations of Iroquois, some of which imposed banishments. “The leadership is caught in a very awkward position, and they have to make a choice. They could either reinforce the ancestral discipline, or they go the American route, which has proven to be a failure.”*
This isn’t something that many non-Native Americans like to focus on, but American Indian policy is in dire need of reformation. Simply pouring “more money” on the problem ain’t gonna cut it. What needs to be confronted is the growing abyss between the haves and have-nots of Indian tribes.
The “haves” tend to be clustered on the coasts, within an easy drive of large urban centers. Take, for instance, the Foxwoods Casino near Stonington, CT — ideally located within driving distance of New York, Boston, Hartford, and Providence. The Foxwoods (which, by the by, is this gaudy pink thing smack in the middle of an idyllic forest) fills the Pequot reservation and has a yearly revenue of about $1 billion. It’s safe to assume that the 270-or-so members of the Mashantucket Pequot are doing just fine, thank you very much.
In contrast, the have-nots — like the Lummi of Washington State — tend to find themselves in less lucrative locations, usually between the coasts, and have extraordinary poverty rates. They’re in need of targeted disbursements and the ability to exercise more local control, so that they can find local solutions for their problems. They also need to be discouraged from seeing “banishment” as an option. Shifting bodies around ain’t a solution. A banished Lummi alcoholic may no longer trouble the Lummi tribe, but he still has a problem — as do the surrounding communities and Washington State.
This isn’t a very sexy issue, but it’s an important one. Let’s try to remember it.
*Story found via Eric at Is that legal?
Typos corrected 1-18-04.
I’m curious to see banishment referred to as “ancestral discipline.”
In most areas of North America banishment was simply a slow-motion death sentence and for many (most?)First Nations was the ultimate punishment.
Yukoner
Sorry, posted my first comment too soon. Have now read the article and understand the context.
Your point about shifting bodies is correct Von. When banishment simply means making your troublemaker some one elses’ problem the original point of the punishment is lost.
Yukoner
Your point about shifting bodies is correct Von. When banishment simply means making your troublemaker some one elses’ problem the original point of the punishment is lost.
Yup. As you point out, the original point of the punishment was to have the person die — just not in front of you.
I came back to refine my second comment (I seem to suffer from a lack of intellectual discipline) and now will have to nit-pick at your response Von.
The fundamental point behind banishment was to rid the group of an individual who was intolerably disruptive to the group. Because it was a slow-motion death sentence, it was not an easy punishment to impose.
It strikes me that, because the overall consequences of banishment are now less dire there is a greater likihood that the banishment punishment will be misused. But the fundamental goal of ridding the group of a disruptive individual is still being met.
Yukoner
I getcha, Yukoner. I don’t think there’s any real disagreement here — aside from me being a bit flip.