Rerighting the Historical Record:Violence against Native Women and the South Dakota Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault

You must be able to see where you have been before you can possibly know where you want to go.

Muscogee Creek saying

There is growing recognition that violent crime victimization is pervasive in the lives of Native1 women. Numerous scholars and activists have considered Congress's findings that violent crimes committed against Native women are more prevalent than for all other populations in the United States. One out of every three Native women will be raped in her lifetime, three out of every four Native women will be physically assaulted, Native women are stalked at a rate more than double that of any other population, and during the period of 1979 through 1992, homicide was the third-leading cause of death of Native females aged fifteen to thirty-four.2 Violence against Native women is a problem of epic proportions that not only endangers the lives of individual Native women but also erodes the sovereignty of Native nations and destroys Native communities.

At the opening of the Tribal Nations Conference and Interactive Discussion with Tribal Leaders in November 2009, President Barack [End Page 21] Obama responded to this violence by declaring it "an assault on our national conscience that we can no longer ignore."3 He further addressed this issue with his July 2010 signing of the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA). Hailed by many as a landmark piece of legislation that both acknowledges and attempts to reduce the severity of crime on Indian reservations, the bill's provisions have been particularly applauded for their potential to address the rates of violence against Native women. In particular, Title XI of the legislation deals specifically with domestic violence and sexual assault prevention and enforcement. This portion of the bill requires tribal and federal officials in Indian Country to receive specialized training to interview victims and collect evidence. It also calls for the implementation of standardized sexual assault protocol for tribal law officials and Indian Health Service facilities. Likewise, the provisions that bolster the prosecution and sentencing of perpetrators are aimed at reducing the incidence of violence in the lives of Native women.

It is critical, however, that we situate federal legislative efforts such as the TLOA in the larger context of Native activism and knowledge from which they emerge. President Obama alone cannot be credited with the implementation of this act. Its existence develops out of numerous historical moments, grassroots efforts, and indigenous struggles against settler-colonialism and heteropatriarchy. This essay documents one such previously marginalized historical moment by tracing the emergence, development, and eventual splintering of the South Dakota Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (SDCADVSA) from the perspective of the Native women instrumental in its existence.4 My primary objective here is to rewrite/reright5 the position of Native women in antiviolence discussions by centering their voices and concerns and, accordingly, by decentering the mainstream, colonialist narrative that typically frames such narrations.6 For as the following indigenized history demonstrates, although the issue of violence against Native women has only recently garnered mainstream attention, Native women have been addressing this problem at local, national, and international levels for decades. It is this mobilization that the federal government builds on when finally considering the extent and significance of violence in the lives of Native women who have faced the unique challenge of combating racism in the antiviolence movement, sexism in their own communities, and marginalization in society as a whole when attempting to render this violence visible.

In addition, I aim to recount critically this previous attempt on behalf of the state, Native communities, and white citizenry to work together in eradicating violence in order to glean further insights about the insidious nature of settler-colonialism. For an indigenized history of the SDCADVSA is not critical solely because it renders visible Native women's engagement with antiviolence mobilization, but also [End Page 22] because it speaks to the complicated and myriad ways in which the "logic of elimination," which Patrick Wolfe so deftly delineates in his comparative study of the relationship between genocide and settler-colonialism, manifests.7 In other words, rather than read the history of the SDCADVSA as an isolated historical moment in which there were a few racist apples in a relatively well-meaning bunch of anti-violence activists, I urge us to seriously consider the development of the SDCADVSA as illustrative of "settler colonization [as] a structure rather than an event" that is complex in social formation, continuous throughout time, at moments present as genocide, and at moments present as other equally destructive forms of the logic of elimination.8 Such an understanding of settler-colonialism enables us to read the events surrounding the SDCADVSA in tandem with previous or simultaneously occurring manifestations, such as the racial classification of Natives, frontier homicide, blood quantum policies, child abduction, boarding schools, and so forth, which ultimately aids us in more fully understanding the consequences of working within a settler-colonial framework in attempts to eradicate violence against Native women.

Beginnings

In 1977, a nonprofit organization was founded by women on the Rosebud Reservation in South Dakota to work with women, men, and children in an effort to restore the sacredness of women. This organization, the White Buffalo Calf Woman Society, is based on the traditional Lakota teaching that "even in thought, women are to be respected."9 Accordingly, the society combats violence against Native women with traditional Lakota life ways and teachings. Only one year after the creation of the society (which would later establish the first shelter for Native women on an Indian reservation), President Faith Spotted Eagle (Ihanktonwan Nakota) was invited to testify at the United States Commission on Civil Rights hearings on battered women in Washington, D.C. Because she was unable to attend the event, Spotted Eagle asked the Sicangu Lakota activist Tillie Black Bear, who was a student in graduate school at the University of South Dakota, Vermillion, and a member of the society, to take her place. With approximately three hundred other women from across the United States, Black Bear attended the hearings in D.C. and testified about the needs of women on the Rosebud Reservation.

The women present at the hearings began to see that they had similar concerns about violence against women. During breaks in meetings, a group began to gather in the men's bathroom10 and discussed the importance of creating a national movement against domestic violence. By the end of the hearings, Black Bear (the only Native woman in attendance) and the others had decided to form the National Coalition [End Page 23] Against Domestic Violence. All the women present were asked to organize state coalitions when they returned to their respective homes and about twenty women agreed to be on the steering committee for the national coalition.

Despite her doubts that a Native woman would be able to play such a leading role in South Dakota during the late 1970s, Black Bear returned home and spoke with the South Dakota Commission on the Status of Women. They discussed potential organizing efforts, and after attending a quarterly meeting of the commission, Black Bear was able to convince them to help her arrange a statewide coalition-organizing meeting.

Black Bear then returned to the White Buffalo Calf Woman Society and looked for a space to host the meeting. Because there was not a location on the Rosebud Reservation that could accommodate the potential attendees, she asked the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for the use of their dorms. The BIA agreed, and in June 1978 seventy-seven women responded to the invitation and attended the first organizing meeting of what would become the South Dakota Coalition Against Domestic Violence.11

Prior to 1978 there were only three programs in the state providing shelter to battered women and advocacy for rape victims: Brookings Women's Center located in Brookings, Children's Inn located in Sioux Falls, and White Buffalo Calf Woman Society. Although all three of the programs served Native women, the staff members and board of Brookings Women's Center and Children's Inn were made up almost entirely of white women. This division between clients and program managers became a spot of tension in later coalition organizing. Because only three programs existed throughout the state, however, most of the women who attended the initial meeting were individuals interested in the issue of violence against women and did not yet represent programs. Of the seventy-seven women who attended, only a handful were Native and most of them were from Rosebud.12

The first meeting of the coalition focused on holding workshops to discuss the needs of women in South Dakota and to suggest strategies for addressing these needs. A sampling of the topics explored includes funding sources, medical services, networking, education, counseling and advocate services, and the creation of shelters.13 At the end of the gathering a decision was made to meet again during the next month in order to begin drafting the articles of incorporation that would permit the organization to have a formal presence within South Dakota. During this time Black Bear was still facilitating/organizing the coalition. She had yet to face any real resistance to the fact that she was a Native woman leading a statewide and primarily Anglo-American organization in South Dakota. The second meeting was held a month later at St. Joseph's Indian School in Chamberlain and the steering [End Page 24] committee began drafting the articles of incorporation. Of the seven members on the steering committee, only Spotted Eagle and Black Bear were Native.14

In 1978, six more programs dealing with violence against women were established in South Dakota: (1) Citizens Against Rape and Domestic Violence in Sioux Falls, (2) Women in Crisis Coalition in Spearfish, (3) Women Against Violence in Rapid City, (4) Women's Resource Center in Watertown, (5) Women's Center/Shelter in Yankton, and (6) Sacred Shawl Women's Society on the Pine Ridge Reservation. Again, although Native women utilized the programs throughout the state, the boards and staff of these organizations were fairly unintegrated, and only Sacred Shawl Women's Society was run by Native women.

In order to address the minimal representation of Native women, the steering committee proposed that a board of fifteen members with direct representation of programs direct the coalition as follows:

  • • Five East Missouri River board members

  • • Five West Missouri River board members

  • • Five Indian board members

    • • One urban

    • • Two East Missouri River Reservation

    • • Two West Missouri River Reservation15

Despite this attempt at parallel development and participation from both Native and non-Native communities within the coalition, and because Native women were at the forefront of the only two reservation programs that existed in the state at the time, the goals of the steering committee were simply that—goals. In the early years of the coalition, domestic violence programs statewide were so heavily dominated by non-Native women that the spots reserved for Native women often remained unfilled. The Oglala Lakota activist Karen Artichoker reflects on this issue, "Being outnumbered and not having other Native women participate really did influence other Indian women not getting involved in those early years." She describes a conversation she had with a Lakota woman, Bernice Stone, and recalls, "It's always stayed with me and made me feel bad at the moment and still makes me feel bad. The statement she made was that she felt inferior being in a room full of white people. She said, 'I don't know if I just haven't gotten over some boarding school stuff in my life or whatever . . . but I always just think that white people are going to look at me and think I'm not smart or whatever.'"16 Thus, despite Black Bear's foundational role within the birth of the coalition, it didn't take long for Native women to realize that the makeup of the coalition represented primarily Anglo women and their interests.

By the end of the second meeting, a decision was made to incorporate under the name of the South Dakota Coalition Against [End Page 25] Domestic Violence Inc. Bylaws and articles of incorporation were drawn up, reviewed first by the steering committee, and then mailed to all coalition members for comments and voting. The steering committee met again on July 30, 1978, at Sioux Falls College, and at that time they finalized all proposals for organizational structure, bylaws, and articles of incorporation. In September 1978, Black Bear, Joyce Abraham, and Charlotte Schwab incorporated the South Dakota coalition.17

Simultaneously, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence was emerging, and although Native women were extremely underrepresented in the makeup of that coalition as well, they were crucial in its development. In August 1978, sleeping in borrowed National Guard tents, twenty-eight women from all over the country camped out on the Rosebud Reservation at Black Bear's invitation for another organizing meeting. Black Bear comments on her motivation for this work, "In the mid-seventies, I owned my own home, had two young daughters, a master's degree in counseling, and a good job at a local university. I had it all, but I still got involved in a battering relationship."18

Over the next few years, members of the South Dakota coalition worked feverishly to network and make changes on the local, national, and international level. In March 1979, the interim board of directors of the coalition convened in Pierre at a meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women, where Black Bear was invited to testify.19 During that same year, Jane Thompson (a founder of Women Against Violence in Rapid City) brought Erin Pizzey—considered the founder of the modern women's shelter movement in England, and author of Scream Quietly or the Neighbors Will Hear—to Rapid City as a speaker for the South Dakota community. At the time of her presentation in Rapid City, her book was the only resource available on the topic of battered women and her visit was widely attended by members of the coalition.20

In December 1979, the coalition met again and discussed the need to change its bylaws so that they utilized nonsexist language. The coalition members also decided to lobby the legislature for the first time. The two issues they focused on were funding for the local programs and a reporting bill to gather concrete data to determine the incidence of battering in the state. The total coalition budget for lobby ing costs was only $100, however, so members were able to reimburse lobbyists at the rate of only ten cents per mile.21 Despite the lack of resources and the severe South Dakota weather that occurs during the January-March legislative session, many women took their turns as lobbyists.

The difficulties of working through the South Dakota legislature extended far beyond weather conditions and economic strain, however, and this became poignantly clear in March 1980 when the legislative session ended. The coalition's reporting bill passed both the House and the Senate but was vetoed by Governor Janklow, who stated that [End Page 26] he could not support the bill because the language protected the rights of unmarried people and homosexuals. According to Janklow, the legislature did not intend to protect the rights of these groups. Additionally, the coalition's funding bill, totaling $25,000, passed in the House but was killed in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where even one of the few female legislators in South Dakota at the time cast a dissenting vote.22

Thus, when the coalition reconvened in April and June 1980, the main topic of discussion was the need to build a broader base of economic and societal support. Coalition members recognized that they had to have more political clout and that this might be achieved by increased awareness. In addition to identifying potential new funding sources, the coalition conducted a panel of legislators who presented lobbying techniques, and then decided to introduce two more bills to the January 1981 session. One initiative requested restraining orders for batterers, and the other would increase the marriage license fee as a resource for coalition member programs, despite the fact that many Native women were dissatisfied with the marriage license legislation. Since marriage license fees in rural counties and on reservations never produced a significant amount of money, Artichoker comments, "I remember raising that issue, how is that going to benefit development in Indian communities?"23 She adds that because of such irrelevancy, the few Native women involved in the coalition at the time "didn't feel invested or engaged."24 The coalition decided to move forward with both bills regardless of these concerns. The restraining order bill passed both the Senate and House but was vetoed by Governor Janklow, and the marriage license bill failed as well.25 After this second unsuccessful attempt at passing legislation, the coalition experienced what many remember as a "down period."

The tide began to turn in 1983, however, when the coalition again lobbied for protection orders and the marriage license fee increase. In February 1983, the marriage license fee increase to fund local battered women programs finally passed the legislature and was signed by the governor. The domestic violence protection order bill failed that year but became law in March 1984.26 Over the next few years, advancements continued to be made as funding became more accessible when both Family Violence Prevention and Services Act and Victims of Crime Act monies became available in South Dakota and Governor Janklow was replaced with Governor Mickelson.27

During these early years of the coalition, however, other than a few key players, Native women continued to hold marginalized positions and were severely underrepresented. Artichoker recollects, "Tillie gets things started, they laid some foundation, but there aren't any number of Indian women involved to really begin building something."28 In September 1984, Charlene Lapointe, the Sicangu Lakota director at White Buffalo Calf Woman Society at the time, presented a workshop [End Page 27] to the coalition on the special needs of Native women, but this effort did little to alter the dynamics within the organization. Artichoker remembers begging Native women to attend the meetings with her but receiving negative responses: "Every Indian woman I talked to would say almost the same thing. I don't wanna go to that! I know what it's gonna be. I'll have to sit there with those white women."29

In 1985, the advocate Carol Maicki moved to South Dakota from Wyoming, where she had been the state program manager for family violence and sexual assault counseling within the Wyoming Department of Health and Social Services. She was also a founder of the first rape crisis center in Wyoming. In 1987, she joined the board of directors of Women Against Violence in Rapid City, where Artichoker had just finished her term. She became interim director of the program and, thus, attended her first coalition meeting in Sioux Falls. As early as her first meeting, she experienced a taste of the divisions that existed between Native and non-Native women involved in the work when she observed even the spatial divisions of women within the room: "I remember [my first coalition meeting] was at the YWCA and around the table sat about thirty white women. In the corner, apart from the table sat six Native women, one of whom was Tillie Black Bear. It looked strange to me so I asked why they sat apart. The answer I was given by one of the white women was that was the way the Native women 'liked it.' She said they liked to be by themselves. This picture stayed in my mind because it was upsetting and I didn't understand it."30

At the coalition meeting in February 1987, when the South Dakota Coalition Against Domestic Violence added "Sexual Assault" to its name, a major overhaul of the bylaws was proposed to change the structure of the organization, and the national coalition's principles of unity and mission statement were adopted.31 This process took several months, though, because there was not complete agreement on whether these changes should be made. In her recollection of adopting the principles of unity and mission statement, Pearl Gulbranson, outreach specialist for the coalition, tells us, "The root cause of violence was identified as oppression, including racism, sexism, classism, all of the isms, and there were people that, members of the coalition that, really did think that it was still about alcoholism and some kind of innate individual characteristic about ourselves that causes violence."32 Black Bear inserts that some of the Anglo members "were like, we just want to provide services to battered women. We don't want to deal with racism or any of these other issues."33 Gulbranson adds, "It was getting scary because they [the non-Native women] were losing their power."34

In January 1988 the coalition contracted with Maicki to become their first statewide coordinator,35 and in June the coalition celebrated its tenth anniversary. Twenty-six programs were represented, as were state and national legislators, judges, prosecutors, men against violence, [End Page 28] and community people. Maicki immediately set to work writing grant applications for the coalition. Many were approved and the U.S. Justice Department even granted $95,000 to the coalition to conduct a national conference titled "Indian Nations: Justice for Victims of Crime." Artichoker was contracted to assist Maicki in planning and implementing this huge project. The conference was a success and became an annual event for the Department of Justice.36 Shortly thereafter, in 1989, the coalition hired Artichoker to cocoordinate with Maicki.37

Tension Builds

In 1988, Black Bear was the first woman of color to be elected chair of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. It was during this time that she brought back to South Dakota elements of the national coalition's way of conducting meetings. For example, in order to become more inclusive and to give all women skills, it was decided that new or inexperienced members would share the facilitator's job with "older" members. Additionally, a modified consensus model, which the national coalition had been using since its inception, was adopted by the South Dakota coalition.38 Prior to this moment, the South Dakota coalition had been using Robert's Rules of Order, where the majority vote conducts business. Black Bear recalls, "You have to keep in mind where we were at. . . . The state of South Dakota, it was isolated and the women doing the work were pretty isolated and this is what we knew. . . . I served on boards at home and it was all Robert's. I wasn't always comfortable with it, but that was the way decisions were made, until we saw a different way to do it."39

The modified consensus model drastically changed the meeting procedures. Any member could offer a proposal to the group. A discussion then followed with clarifying questions. Lastly, the group would be asked to make a decision. Members could: (1) sit in "silence," which meant agreement with the proposal; (2) "stand aside," which meant the member was not in total agreement but would actively support the group's decision; or (3) "block," which meant that the member could not agree with the proposal in its present form. Any block could stop the process. If a member blocked, the only course of action was to offer a new proposal.40

This new decision-making system allowed all members to have a say but, more important, it guaranteed that a small majority could not impose its will on the rest of the group. There were problems in making this transition, though, because for the first time, women had to be accountable for their votes as individuals. Additionally, modified consensus gave power to the Native women in the coalition that they had not previously held. Artichoker explains, "There were, at that time, twenty-two members. I said, 'Even if every reservation sent an Indian woman [End Page 29] [as a representative member], that means nine.' I said, 'We cannot outvote you. Your voter block could stop any Indian woman from getting into any position of leadership if you so choose. If Indian women get into positions of leadership, it's because you're allowing it. You're being benefactors . . . you're being, whatever! But if we go to consensus we all have to agree."41

Artichoker also remembers calling a non-Native member of the coalition soon after the move to modified consensus was made: "I'm on the phone saying, 'Just think Sherry, the whole executive committee could be Indian women.' . . . She was sort of okay with me and then she called Carol and said, 'Oh my god! The Indians are taking over!'"42 Thus, even though the white women in the coalition reluctantly agreed to the modified consensus model, it didn't take long for them to figure out that a shift in power could occur when the model was actually put into practice.

The Native women remember the resistance they were met with during one of the first meetings where consensus was used and a Native woman was elected to a significant position in the coalition. Again, the Native women sat separate from the white women, visibly illustrating the tension in coalition dynamics. Artichoker recounts the comments from one of the white women during the election process: "Well, I just don't understand how somebody new to the coalition could really do that job because when I think of the executive committee, I always think of the smartest people in the organization and they are the people who I am going to call if I need to know something and if you are just starting, I don't see how you could know anything."43 As the participation of many Native women was relatively new to the coalition, many of the Native women perceived this comment as a racist attack. No one addressed this issue to the whole group, though, and the meeting continued. Moments later, however, the Lakota woman April Fallis leaned over to Artichoker and quietly articulated her anger: "We should just leave and start our own [coalition]!" This exclamation prompted Artichoker to interrupt the proceedings and, tactfully, attempt to explain the need for tolerance and racial equality to the non-Natives in the room. Laughing about it now, she recalls saying something along the lines of, "Some people like broccoli and other people don't."44 The assertion was far from funny at the moment, however, and silence pervaded the room.

As soon as Artichoker sat down, Maicki rose and exclaimed, "Shame on me, shame on me, shame on me . . . here's my beautiful little friend Karen and she's standing up there lips quivering. . . . It should have been me standing up there and saying something and not her. I'm so sorry, Karen."45 At that point, she turned to the white women in the room and began talking about racism and feminism. She asserted that racism was a white people problem and that whites should actually be [End Page 30] the ones catching one another on their use of it. Artichoker remembers all the Native women in the room saying, "Wow, wow, wow,"46 because their needs were finally being taken seriously by a non-Native in the coalition.

Unfortunately, Maicki and Artichoker's attempts to dislodge the racism that was operating within the coalition didn't seem to change things much. When Black Bear brought another innovation from her experience with the national coalition, the women of color task force,47 the white women again expressed resistance and hostility. The women of color task force could bring proposals to the coalition as a group, and it was charged with making the decision for hiring one of the two co-coordinators. This was to assure that at least one cocoordinator would be a Native woman, or if not, that this individual would have to be approved by the women of color task force. Additionally, the women of color task force had the authority to stop the proceedings of a meeting at any time to caucus.48

Again, everyone seemed to agree to patterning the South Dakota coalition after the national coalition when Black Bear first proposed the task force, but the first time the women of color task force exercised its right to stop the proceedings and caucus, there was discomfort and resentment. Maicki recalls that when the Native women left the room to caucus, "there was silence and finally one non-Native woman remarked, 'Well, they have their group, but where is mine?' As she looked around the room and found they were all white women, the humor of what she said was obvious to all."49 Resistance to the concept of inclusivity and to the new reality of having Native women "at the table" became a smoldering undercurrent and would later cause the split of the coalition into two separate entities.

Another task the coalition undertook around this time was to assess "underserved" women in South Dakota. Members determined that there were two areas in the state where women were at high risk because of lack of services and shelters: the Pine Ridge Reservation (primarily rural Native women) and northern Meade County (primarily rural white women.) Cocoordinators Artichoker and Maicki began searching for foundations that would be willing to grant money for start-up activities in these areas. Under its health initiative, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation carved out funds for projects that involved Native Americans and health issues. Artichoker wrote a proposal and was successful in being approved for a three-year grant to start a project on Pine Ridge. It was named Project Medicine Wheel and the coalition was the fiscal agent for the grant.50

Because Artichoker was an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Nation, the coalition executive committee decided that she would oversee the project, since it would not be appropriate or realistic for a non-Native to impose a program on a Native nation. This duty was also [End Page 31] in keeping with her job description, which included providing technical assistance for all the emerging programs on Indian reservations in the state. Artichoker designed Project Medicine Wheel so that the focus was a total community response to violence against women. She hired staff and monitored them. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation monitored the project's progress and Maria Russell, the non-Native coalition treasurer, administered and monitored the funds. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the development of this project further increased racial tensions within the coalition. Ally Ro Ann Redlin remembers the white women reacting to the management of the grant: "I don't know if we should let those Indian women handle all that money."51 Gulbranson elaborates on this memory and talks about all "the squirming and the ugliness" that occurred when the vote to administer the grant took place: "We couldn't say that vote out loud. We had to do it by ballot. That's how uncomfortable people were."52

The conflicted relations between Natives and non-Natives that were building inside the coalition mirrored events that were occurring on the larger South Dakota landscape. In 1990, the Comanche advocate and social justice activist Charon Asetoyer and others began looking for a location in Lake Andes where the Native American Women's Health Education Resource Center53 could open a shelter. In their attempts to find an appropriate place, a situation developed that would only add to the smoldering resistance of white members within the coalition who were not comfortable with the emerging leadership of Native women.

The mayor of Lake Andes had previously asked Asetoyer to contact him if the Resource Center ever decided to expand its organization. When the women found a location for the shelter, Asetoyer informed him that they had purchased the house next door to the Resource Center. Shortly after this exchange, Asetoyer was contacted by the City Council and told that she needed a zoning variance for the chosen location. A little concerned, she asked other members from the coalition and her staff to attend the zoning hearing with her.54 Coincidently, a year prior to these events Asetoyer had been featured in Mother Jones magazine.55 After this press, Joni, a woman from the East Coast, had contacted Asetoyer and asked to collect video footage for a possible film. The night of the City Council meeting, this woman and her video camera were in attendance.

When the women entered the meeting, the room was packed full of people and one of the zoning commissioners asked Joni not to videotape the proceedings. Joni turned her camera to the floor but left it on so that the audio could still be recorded.56 During that meeting, racial tensions reached their peak when State's Attorney Mike Whalen stood and announced, "Indian culture as I view it, is presently so mongrelized as to be a mix of dependency on the federal government and a [End Page 32] primitive society wholly on the outside of the mainstream of Western civilization and thought. The Native American culture as we know it now, not as it formerly existed, is a culture of hopelessness, godlessness, of joblessness and lawlessness."57 Needless to say, the Resource Center was denied the zoning permit.58 Asetoyer reflects on this moment, "We were in a state of shock. We couldn't believe the blatant racism—the state's attorney was really supposed to be working with groups that are trying to protect victims of crime, and as we know [women] fleeing from domestic violence and sexual assault are victims of crime. Instead he was doing everything he could to prevent a facility from opening up in Lake Andes."59

After this event, Asetoyer contacted the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the Yankton Sioux Tribe organized a march down Main Street in protest of the racist atmosphere in the city. To respond to a member program's distress and to show support, the executive committee of the coalition, at the request of Black Bear, decided to hold the quarterly meeting in Lake Andes. The committee also decided to include a discussion of the remarks made by Mike Whalen on the agenda. Asetoyer recalls that there was obvious resentment from some of the non-Native women in the coalition and comments that racism seemed to trump the commitment to ending violence against women.60

As the Yankton Sioux march in Lake Andes approached, a letter was written to coalition chairperson Shari Aaker-Gilchrist by Bradley Olson (chairperson of a local shelter program in Yankton). In his letter he objected to the proposed agenda because, "although we empathize with the stand of Native Americans against the statement made by States Attorney, Mike Whalen, we feel the focus of the current agenda would be centered around this issue and not be beneficial or productive toward the common goal of addressing domestic violence. Therefore, it is the decision of our Board that the Yankton Women's Center/Shelter not be officially represented at the September meeting."61 This letter foreshadowed the rhetoric that would be used by white women who objected to the coalition's growing involvement with what they termed "Indian issues." They viewed this focus as separate from their work of providing shelter and advocacy to victims of violence, despite the fact that the women in Lake Andes were denied shelter accommodations precisely because they were Native women.

The meeting was held in Lake Andes as scheduled and the Yankton program's letter became an agenda topic. The executive committee tasked Artichoker with responding to Olson's letter, which she did on October 5, 1990. She wrote, "Mr. Whalen publicly stated that the Native American Women's Health Education Resource Center, a member organization of the South Dakota Coalition, 'promotes evil.' While this remark referenced Indian culture, it would be irresponsible of us to allow a public official to make such disparaging and racist comments [End Page 33] about a member organization of the Coalition. It would also be disrespectful to ignore blatant racism especially when battered women and children of color are the vehicle being used to promote racism."62 She went on to say, "Domestic violence is an issue of oppression in our society" and the mission of the coalition is to confront it as such, despite the fact that "many shelters/programs in our state have difficulty making the connection between providing direct services to battered women and the need for social change on a more global scale."63 Artichoker ended the letter by saying, "In turn, the coalition is available to support the Yankton Women's Shelter/Center should you find yourselves facing a Mike Whalen who has power over you."64

The letter from the Yankton program is only one example of the many complaints non-Native boards and directors around the state launched when the direction of the coalition began to shift. Even though the South Dakota coalition's goals and mission were in sync with those of the national coalition, the new approach was upsetting for many white South Dakotans. Maicki explains, "Some of the resistance by the white women came about because of the changes they were experiencing. For some, being on the 'side' of Native people was a new and frightening experience because it felt unsafe."65

One of the non-Native women who participated in the Lake Andes march was so traumatized she needed many hours of discussion to come to terms with how she felt. She said:

All my life, I've lived here in South Dakota and never did I have any contact with Native people until I came to the shelter escaping my batterer husband. Now that I'm free of that relationship and am actually working in a shelter, I was feeling proud of myself and what I had accomplished until that day in Lake Andes. I couldn't understand the pure hatred on the faces of white people like me as we walked past them. I couldn't believe that people like me could look at me like that. They saw me as one of them—as one of the Indians! It threw me into a crisis that lasted for weeks. That night, I desperately phoned people from my motel room to talk about it. I spent the night sleepless and crying.66

The Siksika Blackfeet advocate Brenda Hill recalls the reactions of the white women who participated in the march similarly: "I remember how surprised I was at how fearful many of the white women were. Some of them were talking about leaving and it occurred to me that as Native women, as women in general, we're used to having to listen for footsteps and all of that, but for Native women, we're used to the idea that we can be hurt because of our . . . being Indian anytime just as well."67 Asetoyer adds, "I do remember that there were women who [End Page 34] were talking about leaving and I was kind of like in a state of shock because this was all over a group of women trying to open up a shelter. . . . I just couldn't understand what their concern was . . . their fear."68 To help address these issues, allies Penny Hauffe and Gulbranson initiated a white women working against racism committee at the Lake Andes meeting, but this, too, was met with resistance.69 Gulbranson remembers white women in the coalition asking, "What do you mean white women working against racism? All of us?"70

Similar reactions surfaced at a board meeting of the member organization Women Against Violence Inc. (WAVI) in Rapid City. When Director Frances Hitzel reported on her attendance at the quarterly meeting held in Lake Andes, she explained the development of the women of color task force and the white women working against racism working group. The board members were not only upset with her recap of the meeting, but most were furious. They simply could not understand why racism needed to be addressed when all programs were doing the same thing—providing safety to battered women. It should be noted here that the board of WAVI consisted of nine members, all of whom were non-Native. Their shelter was almost always filled to capacity and the majority of women sheltered were Native battered women.71

Maicki remembers that the difference between individual acts of racism and institutionalized racism was very difficult for some of the white women to understand. She asserts, "A typical comment from a white person was that they, themselves, were good-hearted people without any evil intentions to do harm to minorities so why should they be accused of colluding with oppressors from the past?"72 Nevertheless, training programs were developed and, albeit hesitantly, some members began to read and educate themselves about racism.73 For example, Maicki recalls that one shelter director went to a workshop and the main thing she came away with was that even though she, herself, did not operate in a racist way, the very fact that she was born and raised in a community that had institutionalized racism meant she couldn't help but have racist thoughts and opinions. She embraced this concept because it explained a lot about the way she thought about herself in comparison to Native people. She remembered that when she was a resident in a shelter that had Native women as staff, she had thought to herself, "What can that Indian woman possibly help me with?"74

The Walkout

Despite the diversity trainings and efforts of some member organizations to directly address and remedy the racism operating within the coalition, unrest still permeated the air. For example, Native women had begun making complaints regarding the services and attitudes at [End Page 35] some of the non-Native shelters they had utilized. Hill recalls a story a Native woman had told her regarding her experiences: "She said that one of the white women residents had said something to her like 'her dirty Indian kids' and she should just go back to the reservation. . . . The Native woman told one of the advocates and the advocates said they needed to sit down and work it out, you know. And they weren't allowed to use sage and it just got worse and worse and worse till one woman told me, 'Well I had been there once and I'd rather sleep under a bush than stay in the Aberdeen shelter!'"75 It was right around this time that some of the non-Native programs began to hold secret meetings apart from the quarterly meetings of the coalition. On March 7, 1991, seven women, all directors of non-Native programs, met in Sioux Falls to "discuss concerns in the direction of the Coalition."76 This meeting resulted in a list of concerns that was "anonymously" sent to coalition chair Aaker-Gilchrist on March 8, 1991. The participating member organizations listed eight major concerns along with "resolution ideas" to be considered by the executive committee and the membership. Prominent among these concerns were utilizing consensus format in place of Robert's Rules of Order, the implementation of cochairs rather than one chairperson, and the management of Project Medicine Wheel. Notably, these concerns challenged Native leadership and Native management of funds. For example, concerning Project Medicine Wheel, it was suggested that the executive committee of the coalition review the policy manual, financial records, and overall management of the project to ensure that it was being conducted according to the grant that funded it.

On March 15, the executive committee met in Redfield to respond to this list of concerns. They reminded the coalition that all bylaws, including consensus format and the implementation of cochairs, had been agreed on by the membership as a whole. They also reminded members of the processes that needed to be followed in order to change these bylaws. Additionally, they responded that both Chairperson Aaker-Gilchrist and Treasurer Russell oversaw the execution of Project Medicine Wheel.77

Hill took exception to the executive committee's acknowledgment of the list of concerns from anonymous "members of the coalition" 78 and sent a response letter to all coalition programs. In this document she argues, "That the executive committee acknowledged and thereby condoned the clandestine meeting in Sioux Falls is an affront to all Native American programs and others who understand that racism is as lethal as sexism."79 She went on to make the connections between batterers' tactics and the "nameless, faceless people" at the Sioux Falls meeting who refused to utilize the names of the Native members whose programs they suggested be placed under review: "Batterers rarely use their victim's name. Our coordinator's name is Karen Artichoker. The [End Page 36] policy manual was written by Marlin Mousseau [not Marlin Russow]. As Native people we do have names and identities. We do have voices and will not be discounted. But of course, it is easier to do violence, once the 'enemy' has been dehumanized."80 Additionally, she asserts, "the gross misinterpretation of sharing leadership is a great example of racism. Native women shouldn't/can't be leaders; we're supposed to shut-up and sit in back of the bus; quit being so uppity and stay on the reservation. White women only as 'leaders,' is that what they want?"81 Hill ends the letter by exclaiming that the Native women of the coalition will not be submissive: "We are standing up, voicing our rights in a direct, open and ethical way. We will not submit to racism. You can be sure that as Native women continue to assume our rightful role in coalition leadership, we will treat everyone with the respect and dignity they have earned and deserve."82

The coalition then received word that the Division of Human Rights within the Department of Commerce had contacted the Community Block Grant Program, a federal funding organization, because the director had received an "anonymous" phone call complaining that committees within the coalition were excluding people based on sex or race. It was specifically in response to this complaint that the women of color task force requested a special meeting to consider a statement they would distribute to the group. In April 1991, twenty-four member programs of the coalition convened a special meeting at the Asbury United Methodist Church in Sioux Falls to consider and respond to the women of color task force statement of concern. The coalition had requested that Senator Maicki return to facilitate the meeting, and it had been decided that the women of color task force would present their statement of concern and then leave the meeting so the white women could discuss the statement. After this, the Native women would return so that decisions could be made.83

The night before the meeting, Maicki was in her motel room when she had a visit from a non-Native member who expressed that she felt the situation within the coalition was hopeless and that some of the white programs were determined to leave and form another group. Maicki asked the visitor to come to the next day's meeting with an open mind and to put the needs of the entire group above individual interests. The visitor said she would try but that she was not optimistic.84

The next morning member programs assembled for the meeting. The members of women of color task force handed out their statement. To start the meeting, task force chair Black Bear offered a prayer in her Lakota language and then the Native women left the building and said they would return in two hours. Maicki suggested that everyone take the time to read the statement drawn up by the task force before she led them through the issues one by one. Before this could happen, a woman voiced her objection to the prayer offered by Black Bear. She [End Page 37] said, "That's rude. Why couldn't she translate the prayer into English?" while another woman inquired as to why a Christian prayer was not offered in addition to the one in Lakota.85

The prayer served as a catalyst for the non-Native women to bring up every complaint they had about the Native women. There were some objections to these complaints and the discussion became heated because not all the white women agreed. One member asked why the prayer had been so disturbing. Another offered that perhaps English wasn't God's first language. The discussion and complaints continued for the entire two hours. When the Native women returned, they were told that the statement had not yet been considered so they left for two more hours, during which Maicki moved the discussion toward considering the women of color task force's five-page statement of concern.86

In its introduction, the statement named the recent activities within the coalition as acts of racism. It presented an analysis of racism, linking the dynamics of racism to the dynamics of sexism, so that there might be common ground to begin rebuilding the coalition into a strong, multicultural organization that represents diversity and provides a voice for all battered women and their children.87

The letter also called for an examination of power and privilege within the coalition and acknowledged the gestures that had been made to address these imbalances:

The privileged group must be willing to give up the privilege that comes with belonging to a certain group. You outnumber us. That is the reality of the Coalition. With parliamentary procedure, the voices of women of color were moot—lost. A majority vote decision-making process renders women of color powerless within this organization. It would be your privilege and with your benevolence that the voices of women of color would be heard. Your willingness to move to a consensus model of decision making—thus giving up some of your privilege was heartening to us. It indicated that you truly did want us to feel that the Coalition was an organization that we could feel invested in and a part of. In a racially mixed organization, this is indeed a rare experience for us.88

However, the statement continued, "You have now come face to face with your loss of privilege," and "We see individuals defending the status quo of their shelters/programs. It is obvious that the Coalition does not yet have a 'collective consciousness.'"89

The statement then enumerated the problems within the coalition as the women of color task force perceived them. First and foremost, [End Page 38] they believed that problems were surfacing because of lack of leadership, and they requested that Chairperson Aaker-Gilchrist resign her position. Five additional concerns were then set forth:

  1. 1. In regards to the anonymous person that contacted the Division of Human Rights, it was demanded that the person who made this call "must be identified and held accountable for this subversive activity. They must either be censured or removed from this organization."

  2. 2. They asked for clarification on relationships between the executive committee, staff/contract consultants, and committee members so that misuse of committee power does not occur. They suggested this could be addressed through bylaws and in-house policy.

  3. 3. It was suggested that an orientation packet be developed for all new members so that the philosophy that guides the coalition is clear.

  4. 4. They recommended a retreat designed to provide information and time for extensive dialogue on the connections between racism, classism, homophobia, and so forth, and domestic violence, in order to develop a common understanding and language.

  5. 5. They asked for a policy on ethical communication, asserting that it is not acceptable for white women to use safety or female socialization as an excuse for holding selective and exclusive meetings.90

The statement ended with the desire that white women be strong and courageous, and that they take risks—exactly as battered women are asked to have the courage to plunge into the unknown when they leave violent relationships. The task force members also firmly stated that they would not withdraw from the organization and that they anticipated a new and stronger future—as sisters.91

Under the facilitation of Maicki, the white women moved through the issues contained in the statement. Aaker-Gilchrist refused to resign. No one in the room would identify herself as the person making the anonymous complaint to the Division of Human Rights. The body agreed to all other issues, although not unanimously. Some women chose to "stand aside," indicating they were not in total agreement but that they did agree not to block the adoption of the other task force suggestions. The women of color task force returned and were told about the decisions made.92 Unfortunately, though, little was truly resolved because what followed was a breakdown of the coalition as it existed at the time.

On July 3, 1991 (less than three months after the coalition meeting [End Page 39] addressing the women of color task force's statement), a letter on behalf of the same seven non-Native programs that had held secret meetings was sent to the Department of Commerce, which disbursed state funds to the coalition. In this letter, the seven organizations first thanked state officials for having met with them and then asserted that they chose to remove themselves from the South Dakota Coalition. Among the reasons given for this decision were the following:

  • • The coalition no longer addressed domestic violence and sexual assault.

  • • There was no cohesiveness between programs. Meetings addressed issues such as Wounded Knee and White Buffalo Calf Woman Society, which are individual and community issues that have no bearing on the mission of the coalition.

  • • The coalition had reported training that never happened and was reimbursed for those activities from state funds.

  • • An audit was overdue and coalition meeting minutes were not available.

The letter ends with the seven organizations asserting they were "committed to providing safety and shelter from any form of battering" yet found themselves "in a unique position of being victims" in coalition meetings and proceedings.93 They added, "Learned behavior is applicable throughout society. It is no respecter of race, religion, color, ethnic background, age or social standing. We choose to not continue in a disruptive, embroiled environment."94

A letter of response was sent from the coalition to the resigning programs. The letter expressed regret at the resignation but also noted concern "that no grievances or formal discussion was brought forth beforehand."95 "Nevertheless," the letter continued, "the door of the Coalition remains open should you decide to 'carefront' these issues or rejoin in the future."96

After their resignation from the coalition, the seven programs created the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault. The network was immediately supported by the state of South Dakota, and the coalition's state funding was essentially cut in half to accommodate the network. The situation today remains the same. The coalition still has a diverse membership that includes programs located in Indian Country in addition to "white" programs located off-reservation. The network is exclusive, with no members located in Indian Country. The network continues to challenge state and federal funding sources to support its organization instead of the original coalition. Despite the fact that the federal government recognizes the original coalition as the designated coalition in South Dakota, the state government continues [End Page 40] to support and advocate for the network in the interest of "fairness."97 Asetoyer articulates the sentiments of many Native women who witnessed the walkout when she says, "You know, what has always puzzled me to this day is that the split between the coalition and the formation of the network was based on race. . . . Rather than the state saying, 'You all have to work this out and move forward together,' they went and rewarded the racists by funding them and subsidizing them! That is something we can't overlook! . . . I mean it was a contributing factor to the racism and it made them safe to be racist."98

Conclusion

As indicated above, this essay has attempted to provide a complex and nuanced understanding of the events surrounding the development of the SDCADVSA by foregrounding the perspectives of the Native women instrumental in its existence. Such a task is critical in ongoing efforts to decolonize Native peoples because it documents Native women's struggles against white supremacy and heteropatriarchy, as well as decentering mainstream colonial narrations of a monolithic antiviolence movement—one that, at best, marginalizes Native women and, at worst, attempts to "include" women of color in a superficial and subordinating manner that further strengthens white supremacy and violence.99

In addition to rerighting our understanding of the antiviolence movement, this counter-narrative also expands our knowledge of the intricacies and intersections of settler-colonialism and heteropatriarchy, which do not have to manifest as genocide proper in order to be recognized as genocidal practice. For example, it becomes increasingly clear throughout the development of the coalition that although the non-Native membership professed commitment to both Native and non-Native concerns, white supremacist practices and ideologies were ultimately privileged. Non-Native members within the coalition might have made a show of renouncing their power with actions such as the move to modified consensus and the adoption of the national coalition's mission statement and principles of unity, but when the power balance within the coalition actually began to shift, these same members demonstrated an inability or refusal to work with an anti-colonialist framework. They were willing to "include" Native women in the coalition but only if the Natives sat quietly in the back of the room and white supremacy dictated the terms of their conversations and mobilizations. When Native women refused this role, the non-Native members responded by abandoning the coalition and creating an exclusively non-Native organization that eliminates Native concerns, Native members, and, ultimately, attention to violence against Native women. This is poignantly demonstrative of Linda Tuhiwai Smith's assertion that the forms, manifestations, and executors of settler-colonialism can range [End Page 41] from "'rapacious bandit kings' intent on exploitation to 'well-meaning middle class liberals' intent on salvation."100 Further, it illustrates the significance of "charting the continuities, discontinuities, adjustments, and departures whereby a logic that initially informed frontier killing transmutes into different modalities, discourses and institutional formations as it undergirds the historical development and complexification of settler society."101

It is also critical, however, to emphasize that the Native membership never left the coalition or gave up in their fight to end violence against Native women. Hill reminds us, "We need to recognize and celebrate the fact that we not only survived a time that could have destroyed us, we came through it with not only our dignity intact, but wiser and stronger. We clarified, by test of fire, what our mission is about."102 This perseverance in the onslaught of white supremacist acts is both a testament to the resistance Native women have demonstrated throughout colonization and a building block on which current antiviolence efforts, such as the TLOA, rest.

The significance of this should not be overlooked. While we can, and should, acknowledge the foundational importance that such historical moments have in antiviolence organizing, we must also appreciate the degree to which such an indigenized history of the SDCADVSA better illuminates the relationship between the state and violence against Native women. In her recollection of the walkout and creation of the network, Asetoyer asserts, "The network is rewarded. The state funds the network and rewards them for their racism. It's such a hard pill to swallow. It's so big I'm not gonna swallow it."103 The ways that state procedures, funding, and legislative support play a key role in maintaining violence against Native women are critical to our understanding of and, thus, approach to eradicating this problem. When the state coalition was forced to split its funding with a network of programs that refused to work with Native peoples, the state's privileging of settler-colonial ideologies and practices over the commitment to ending violence against Native women became apparent. It is crucial, then, that in addition to considering the potential benefits of state-mandated antiviolence efforts like the TLOA, we also critically consider the potentially further colonizing consequences of such measures. [End Page 42]

Kimberly Robertson

Kimberly Robertson is a citizen of the Muscogee Creek Nation and an activist, teacher, scholar, and mother. She earned a master's degree in American Indian studies and a doctoral degree in women's studies from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 2008 and 2012, respectively. Her academic interests and political commitments include the relationships between violence against Native women, the construction of identity, urbanity, sovereignty, and indigenous feminisms. She and her family live in Los Angeles and are active members of the urban Indian community.

Notes

1. I use the term "Native" as inclusive of American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, First Nation, south/central/ Mexican American, and Native Pacific peoples. When context-appropriate, however, such as in the case of referring to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, I interchange the term "Indian" with "Native."

2. Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (H.R. 3402); Lawrence A. Greenfield and Steven K. Smith, American Indians and Crime (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, USDOJ, February 1999); Steven W. Perry, American Indians and Crime (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, USDOJ, December 2004); Ronet Bachman, National Crime Victimization Survey Compilation (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, USDOJ, 2004); Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USDOJ, November 2000).

3. Office of the Press Secretary, "Remarks by the President During the Opening of the Tribal Nations Conference and Interactive Discussion with Tribal Leaders," http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-during-opening-tribal-nations-conference-interactive-discussion-w (November 5, 2009).

4. I owe unending gratitude to the aunties in South Dakota who helped craft and direct this project and sat generously through hours of interviews: Karen Artichoker, Brenda Hill, Tillie Black Bear, Charon Asetoyer, RoAnn Redlin, Chris Jongeling, Shirley Erhart, Pearl Gulbranson, Roxanne Sazue, and Carla Rae Marshall. Without their wisdom, this project would not be possible. Similarly, I'd like to thank Tara Azure, who helped me with interview transcriptions. I'd also like to note that I undertake this project in honor of former advocate, ally, South Dakota state senator, and maske, Carol Maicki. Described as a leader, mentor, and friend to Native and non-Native women alike, Maicki played a key role in the struggle to end violence against Native women across South Dakota and beyond. When collaborating on this project, the women I worked with explained that before her death in 2004, Maicki had begun the project of documenting the herstory of the SDCADVSA. Unfortunately, she was unable to complete her efforts, but, as she asserts in an unpublished draft of the coalition's herstory, she was passionately committed to telling the story that "occurred when Native women and white women allies fought to change the status quo" in South Dakota from 1978 through the early 1990s. In a letter she wrote to the Native "founding mothers" regarding their experiences with the coalition she asserts, "You are all an important part of enormous social change and we cannot let all of this get lost." This project aims to recount more fully the story Maicki and others wanted to share.

5. I utilize these terms as Linda Tuhiwai Smith conceptualizes [End Page 43] them, as tools in a decolonizing project that takes seriously the intersections between imperialism, history, and the exclusion or misrepresentation of indigenous voices. See Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (New York: Zed Book, 1999).

6. For examples of white supremacist framings that dominate descriptions of the antiviolence movement, as well as responses to such depictions, see texts such as Natalie Sokoloff and Christina Pratt, eds., Domestic Violence at the Margins: Readings on Race, Class, Gender, and Culture (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2005); Maria Ochoa and Barbara Ige, eds., Shout Out: Women of Color Respond to Violence (Emeryville, Calif.: Seal Press, 2007); and Incite! Women of Color Against Violence, eds., Color of Violence:The Incite! Anthology (Cambridge, Mass.: South End Press, 2006).

7. Patrick Wolfe, "Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native," Journal of Genocide Research 8 (December 2006).

8. Ibid., 388.

9. White Buffalo Calf Woman Society information pamphlet. (Throughout this essay, all such primary source materials come from the author's private collection.)

10. Black Bear recalls that the women had to use the men's restroom because there was not a women's restroom in the entire building.

11. SDCADVSA, interview by author, tape recording, Rapid City, South Dakota, March 2008.

12. Commission on the Status of Women, South Dakota Department of Social Services, Division of Human Development, memo, July 26, 1978.

13. SDCADVSA, "Workshop Summaries," July 1978.

14. SDCADVSA interview.

15. Steering committee to SDCADVSA, July 21, 1978.

16. SDCADVSA interview.

17. Ibid.

18. Carol Maicki, "From the Beginning" (unpublished document).

19. Maicki for the SDCADVSA, "Herstory" (unpublished document).

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid.

23. SDCADVSA interview.

24. Ibid.

25. Maicki for the SDCADVSA, "Herstory."

26. Notably, though, the order did not initially protect unmarried people. In order to apply for a protection order, a victim of abuse had to be legally married to the perpetrator. In February 1988, however, changes were made to the legislation that extended protection to unmarried persons.

27. Maicki for the SDCADVSA, "Herstory."

28. SDCADVSA interview.

29. Ibid.

30. Maicki, "From the Beginning."

31. Bylaws Revision Committee, proposed bylaws changes of the SDCADVSA, March 24, 1987.

32. SDCADVSA interview.

33. Ibid.

34. Ibid. [End Page 44]

35. SDCADVSA, coordinator for SDCADVSA contract, February 18, 1988.

36. Carol Maicki, annual report of cocoordinator Carol Maicki, June 1, 1989.

37. This legislative response to violence against women motivated Maicki to run for office. Maicki was elected in November 1990 to the South Dakota Senate and began her term in January 1991.

38. SDCADVSA, "Parallel Development" (unpublished document).

39. SDCADVSA interview.

40. Ibid.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid.

47. As the adoption of task forces (which had more recourse than did committees) was intended to bring political equity to disenfranchised groups, the coalition went on to approve additional task forces, such as the formerly battered women task force, the rural women task force, the sexual assault task force, and the lesbian task force. Also notable is that the coalition eventually changed the name of the women of color task force to the Native women of sovereign nations task force, in order to highlight issues of colonialism as well as the unique government-to-government relationship Native nations have with the United States. This change, too, reflects the feeling that Native women in South Dakota had regarding the irrelevancy the term "women of color" has for Native women. Ibid.

48. SDCADVSA, "Parallel Development."

49. Maicki, "From the Beginning."

50. Karen Artichoker, report to the coalition annual meeting, June 1, 1989.

51. SDCADVSA interview.

52. Ibid.

53. Founded in 1985 by Charon Asetoyer, Clarence Rockboy, and Jackie Rouse. See the Native American Women's Health Education Resource Center, "History," http://www.nativeshop.org/about-us.html (May 17, 2011).

54. Charon Asetoyer, interview by author, tape recording, Lake Andes, South Dakota, March 2008.

55. Sara Miles, "Asetoyer-Rockboy: One Life at a Time, She Saves a Nation," Mother Jones, January 1990, 35.

56. Asetoyer interview.

57. From the original transcript of the zoning hearings from the audio recording Joni was able to capture. For media coverage of Whalen's comments, see Patsy Jeltz, "Yankton Sioux Call for Boycott: Racial Slurs Raise Tempest," Lakota Times, September 11, 1990; Steve Young, "Lake Andes Case Proves Change Due," Argus Leader, September 17, 1990; Reverend Bradley Hauff and Reverend Creighton Robertson, "Whalen's Comments Called 'Grotesque,'" Lakota Times, September 1990, 18; Mike Whalen, "Whalen: Progress Is Needed," Daily Republic, September 20, 1990; Times Staff, "Protesters Demand Whalen's Resignation," Lakota Times, September 25, 1990; David Lias, "Mickelson: Whalen Can't Be Forced to Resign," Daily Republic, September 28, 1990; Bob Mercer, [End Page 45] "S. Dakota Pioneers a Holiday for Native America," Washington Post, October 9, 1990.

58. Sue Ivey, "Andes Abuse Shelter Plans on Hold for Now," Yankton Daily Press and Dakotan, September 18, 1990.

59. Asetoyer interview.

60. Ibid.

61. Bradley Olson to Shari Aaker-Gilchrist, 1990.

62. Karen Artichoker to Bradley Olsen, October 5, 1990.

63. Ibid.

64. Ibid.

65. Maicki, "From the Beginning."

66. Ibid.

67. SDCADVSA interview.

68. Asetoyer interview.

69. SDCADVSA, "Parallel Development."

70. Ibid.

71. Maicki, "From the Beginning."

72. Ibid.

73. National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, follow-up report: South Dakota technical assistance visit, February 10, 1990.

74. Ibid.

75. SDCADVSA interview.

76. Maicki, "From the Beginning."

77. SDCADVSA executive committee to shelter programs, March 18, 1991.

78. The individual member programs that lodged the list of concerns were not known at the time.

79. Brenda Hill to all coalition programs, March 25, 1991.

80. Ibid.

81. Ibid.

82. Ibid.

83. Carol Maicki, "Why There Are Two Coalitions in South Dakota" (unpublished document).

84. Maicki, "From the Beginning."

85. Ibid.

86. Ibid.

87. Women of color task force to all member organizations of the coalition, 1991.

88. Ibid.

89. Ibid.

90. Ibid.

91. Ibid.

92. Maicki, "From the Beginning."

93. Resigning member programs to Jeff Holden, July 3, 1991.

94. Ibid.

95. Deidra Shaw to resigning member programs, July 10, 1991.

96. Ibid.

97. Maicki, "Why There Are Two Coalitions in South Dakota."

98. Asetoyer interview.

99. Andrea Smith develops the notion that "including" women of color within antiviolence mobilization without actually "centering" them unwittingly contributes to white supremacy because it simply adds a "multicultural" component to antiviolence models that were developed primarily with a white, middle-class experience in mind. See "Beyond the Politics of Inclusion: Violence Against Women of [End Page 46] Color and Human Rights" Meridians: Feminism, Race, Transnationalism 4, no. 2 (2004).

100. Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (New York: Zed Books, 1999), 44.

101. Wolfe, "Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native," 402.

102. Brenda Hill to author, May 22, 2008.

103. Asetoyer interview. [End Page 47]

Share

Footnotes

  1. 1. I use the term "Native" as inclusive of American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, First Nation, south/central/ Mexican American, and Native Pacific peoples. When context-appropriate, however, such as in the case of referring to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, I interchange the term "Indian" with "Native."

  2. 2. Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (H.R. 3402); Lawrence A. Greenfield and Steven K. Smith, American Indians and Crime (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, USDOJ, February 1999); Steven W. Perry, American Indians and Crime (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, USDOJ, December 2004); Ronet Bachman, National Crime Victimization Survey Compilation (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, USDOJ, 2004); Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USDOJ, November 2000).

  3. 3. Office of the Press Secretary, "Remarks by the President During the Opening of the Tribal Nations Conference and Interactive Discussion with Tribal Leaders," http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-during-opening-tribal-nations-conference-interactive-discussion-w (November 5, 2009).

  4. 4. I owe unending gratitude to the aunties in South Dakota who helped craft and direct this project and sat generously through hours of interviews: Karen Artichoker, Brenda Hill, Tillie Black Bear, Charon Asetoyer, RoAnn Redlin, Chris Jongeling, Shirley Erhart, Pearl Gulbranson, Roxanne Sazue, and Carla Rae Marshall. Without their wisdom, this project would not be possible. Similarly, I'd like to thank Tara Azure, who helped me with interview transcriptions. I'd also like to note that I undertake this project in honor of former advocate, ally, South Dakota state senator, and maske, Carol Maicki. Described as a leader, mentor, and friend to Native and non-Native women alike, Maicki played a key role in the struggle to end violence against Native women across South Dakota and beyond. When collaborating on this project, the women I worked with explained that before her death in 2004, Maicki had begun the project of documenting the herstory of the SDCADVSA. Unfortunately, she was unable to complete her efforts, but, as she asserts in an unpublished draft of the coalition's herstory, she was passionately committed to telling the story that "occurred when Native women and white women allies fought to change the status quo" in South Dakota from 1978 through the early 1990s. In a letter she wrote to the Native "founding mothers" regarding their experiences with the coalition she asserts, "You are all an important part of enormous social change and we cannot let all of this get lost." This project aims to recount more fully the story Maicki and others wanted to share.

  5. 5. I utilize these terms as Linda Tuhiwai Smith conceptualizes [End Page 43] them, as tools in a decolonizing project that takes seriously the intersections between imperialism, history, and the exclusion or misrepresentation of indigenous voices. See Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (New York: Zed Book, 1999).

  6. 6. For examples of white supremacist framings that dominate descriptions of the antiviolence movement, as well as responses to such depictions, see texts such as Natalie Sokoloff and Christina Pratt, eds., Domestic Violence at the Margins: Readings on Race, Class, Gender, and Culture (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2005); Maria Ochoa and Barbara Ige, eds., Shout Out: Women of Color Respond to Violence (Emeryville, Calif.: Seal Press, 2007); and Incite! Women of Color Against Violence, eds., Color of Violence:The Incite! Anthology (Cambridge, Mass.: South End Press, 2006).

  7. 7. Patrick Wolfe, "Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native," Journal of Genocide Research 8 (December 2006).

  8. 8. Ibid., 388.

  9. 9. White Buffalo Calf Woman Society information pamphlet. (Throughout this essay, all such primary source materials come from the author's private collection.)

  10. 10. Black Bear recalls that the women had to use the men's restroom because there was not a women's restroom in the entire building.

  11. 11. SDCADVSA, interview by author, tape recording, Rapid City, South Dakota, March 2008.

  12. 12. Commission on the Status of Women, South Dakota Department of Social Services, Division of Human Development, memo, July 26, 1978.

  13. 13. SDCADVSA, "Workshop Summaries," July 1978.

  14. 14. SDCADVSA interview.

  15. 15. Steering committee to SDCADVSA, July 21, 1978.

  16. 16. SDCADVSA interview.

  17. 17. Ibid.

  18. 18. Carol Maicki, "From the Beginning" (unpublished document).

  19. 19. Maicki for the SDCADVSA, "Herstory" (unpublished document).

  20. 20. Ibid.

  21. 21. Ibid.

  22. 22. Ibid.

  23. 23. SDCADVSA interview.

  24. 24. Ibid.

  25. 25. Maicki for the SDCADVSA, "Herstory."

  26. 26. Notably, though, the order did not initially protect unmarried people. In order to apply for a protection order, a victim of abuse had to be legally married to the perpetrator. In February 1988, however, changes were made to the legislation that extended protection to unmarried persons.

  27. 27. Maicki for the SDCADVSA, "Herstory."

  28. 28. SDCADVSA interview.

  29. 29. Ibid.

  30. 30. Maicki, "From the Beginning."

  31. 31. Bylaws Revision Committee, proposed bylaws changes of the SDCADVSA, March 24, 1987.

  32. 32. SDCADVSA interview.

  33. 33. Ibid.

  34. 34. Ibid. [End Page 44]

  35. 35. SDCADVSA, coordinator for SDCADVSA contract, February 18, 1988.

  36. 36. Carol Maicki, annual report of cocoordinator Carol Maicki, June 1, 1989.

  37. 37. This legislative response to violence against women motivated Maicki to run for office. Maicki was elected in November 1990 to the South Dakota Senate and began her term in January 1991.

  38. 38. SDCADVSA, "Parallel Development" (unpublished document).

  39. 39. SDCADVSA interview.

  40. 40. Ibid.

  41. 41. Ibid.

  42. 42. Ibid.

  43. 43. Ibid.

  44. 44. Ibid.

  45. 45. Ibid.

  46. 46. Ibid.

  47. 47. As the adoption of task forces (which had more recourse than did committees) was intended to bring political equity to disenfranchised groups, the coalition went on to approve additional task forces, such as the formerly battered women task force, the rural women task force, the sexual assault task force, and the lesbian task force. Also notable is that the coalition eventually changed the name of the women of color task force to the Native women of sovereign nations task force, in order to highlight issues of colonialism as well as the unique government-to-government relationship Native nations have with the United States. This change, too, reflects the feeling that Native women in South Dakota had regarding the irrelevancy the term "women of color" has for Native women. Ibid.

  48. 48. SDCADVSA, "Parallel Development."

  49. 49. Maicki, "From the Beginning."

  50. 50. Karen Artichoker, report to the coalition annual meeting, June 1, 1989.

  51. 51. SDCADVSA interview.

  52. 52. Ibid.

  53. 53. Founded in 1985 by Charon Asetoyer, Clarence Rockboy, and Jackie Rouse. See the Native American Women's Health Education Resource Center, "History," http://www.nativeshop.org/about-us.html (May 17, 2011).

  54. 54. Charon Asetoyer, interview by author, tape recording, Lake Andes, South Dakota, March 2008.

  55. 55. Sara Miles, "Asetoyer-Rockboy: One Life at a Time, She Saves a Nation," Mother Jones, January 1990, 35.

  56. 56. Asetoyer interview.

  57. 57. From the original transcript of the zoning hearings from the audio recording Joni was able to capture. For media coverage of Whalen's comments, see Patsy Jeltz, "Yankton Sioux Call for Boycott: Racial Slurs Raise Tempest," Lakota Times, September 11, 1990; Steve Young, "Lake Andes Case Proves Change Due," Argus Leader, September 17, 1990; Reverend Bradley Hauff and Reverend Creighton Robertson, "Whalen's Comments Called 'Grotesque,'" Lakota Times, September 1990, 18; Mike Whalen, "Whalen: Progress Is Needed," Daily Republic, September 20, 1990; Times Staff, "Protesters Demand Whalen's Resignation," Lakota Times, September 25, 1990; David Lias, "Mickelson: Whalen Can't Be Forced to Resign," Daily Republic, September 28, 1990; Bob Mercer, [End Page 45] "S. Dakota Pioneers a Holiday for Native America," Washington Post, October 9, 1990.

  58. 58. Sue Ivey, "Andes Abuse Shelter Plans on Hold for Now," Yankton Daily Press and Dakotan, September 18, 1990.

  59. 59. Asetoyer interview.

  60. 60. Ibid.

  61. 61. Bradley Olson to Shari Aaker-Gilchrist, 1990.

  62. 62. Karen Artichoker to Bradley Olsen, October 5, 1990.

  63. 63. Ibid.

  64. 64. Ibid.

  65. 65. Maicki, "From the Beginning."

  66. 66. Ibid.

  67. 67. SDCADVSA interview.

  68. 68. Asetoyer interview.

  69. 69. SDCADVSA, "Parallel Development."

  70. 70. Ibid.

  71. 71. Maicki, "From the Beginning."

  72. 72. Ibid.

  73. 73. National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, follow-up report: South Dakota technical assistance visit, February 10, 1990.

  74. 74. Ibid.

  75. 75. SDCADVSA interview.

  76. 76. Maicki, "From the Beginning."

  77. 77. SDCADVSA executive committee to shelter programs, March 18, 1991.

  78. 78. The individual member programs that lodged the list of concerns were not known at the time.

  79. 79. Brenda Hill to all coalition programs, March 25, 1991.

  80. 80. Ibid.

  81. 81. Ibid.

  82. 82. Ibid.

  83. 83. Carol Maicki, "Why There Are Two Coalitions in South Dakota" (unpublished document).

  84. 84. Maicki, "From the Beginning."

  85. 85. Ibid.

  86. 86. Ibid.

  87. 87. Women of color task force to all member organizations of the coalition, 1991.

  88. 88. Ibid.

  89. 89. Ibid.

  90. 90. Ibid.

  91. 91. Ibid.

  92. 92. Maicki, "From the Beginning."

  93. 93. Resigning member programs to Jeff Holden, July 3, 1991.

  94. 94. Ibid.

  95. 95. Deidra Shaw to resigning member programs, July 10, 1991.

  96. 96. Ibid.

  97. 97. Maicki, "Why There Are Two Coalitions in South Dakota."

  98. 98. Asetoyer interview.

  99. 99. Andrea Smith develops the notion that "including" women of color within antiviolence mobilization without actually "centering" them unwittingly contributes to white supremacy because it simply adds a "multicultural" component to antiviolence models that were developed primarily with a white, middle-class experience in mind. See "Beyond the Politics of Inclusion: Violence Against Women of [End Page 46] Color and Human Rights" Meridians: Feminism, Race, Transnationalism 4, no. 2 (2004).

  100. 100. Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (New York: Zed Books, 1999), 44.

  101. 101. Wolfe, "Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native," 402.

  102. 102. Brenda Hill to author, May 22, 2008.

  103. 103. Asetoyer interview. [End Page 47]