Book Review

Mark R. Scherer has written an important book that examines how the Nebraska Omaha Tribe confronted changes in federal Indian policy at the grassroots level during the second half of the twentieth century. Particular attention is given to the Omaha's encounter with Public Law 280, which authorized state jurisdiction in Indian Country, their experience before the Indian Claims Commission, and prolonged litigation to regain control over 11,000 acres of land located on the east side of the Missouri River in Iowa. In each of these issues, Scherer concludes that the Omahas won an imperfect but significant legal victory that strengthened tribal self-determination.	1
In 1953 Congress passed Public Law 280 to terminate federal wardship for certain tribes. Under this statute, Nebraska and four other mandated states had to assume civil and criminal jurisdiction over their Indians. Scherer points out that it was doubtful whether Omaha leaders or state officials in Nebraska gave prior consent to the passage of this law. Ironically, Public Law 280 merely confirmed the criminal jurisdiction that Nebraska had exercised over Indians for seventy years under section six of the Dawes General Allotment Act. Nonetheless, Public Law 280 altered the pattern of law enforcement by requiring Nebraska to pay for the prosecution and housing of Indian prisoners that had been a federal responsibility under the 1885 Major Crimes Act.	2
The author clearly demonstrates that Public Law 280 produced disastrous results in Nebraska. Short-sighted state officials refused to appropriate adequate funds for law and order after the departure of the single federal policeman stationed on the Omaha Reservation. This increased Indian juvenile delinquency, alcohol abuse, assault and battery, and other crimes. It also deepened mistrust between the Omahas and their non-Indian neighbors.	3
In 1968 Congress responded to lawless conditions on the Omaha Reservation. It amended Public Law 280 to provide for the retrocession of state responsibility for Indians. One year later, the Nebraska legislature approved an Omaha request to return to federal jurisdiction. The Bureau of Indian Affairs then provided the tribe with funds to build a court and a jail and hire six policemen. This was a significant step toward Omaha self-determination even though tension remained between Indians and local authorities over a state highway that crossed the reservation.	4
The Omahas also won an imperfect legal victory in their fourteen-year litigation to settle grievances under the 1946 Indian Claims Commission Act. Tribal attorneys in Case 225 requested, among other things, compensation for lands ceded under an 1854 treaty. In Case 138 they asked for a monetary award to redress the wrongful taking of tribal land in western Iowa and northwestern Missouri. Scherer provides an excellent analysis of the numerous problems that Omahas encountered while trying to resolve their claims. A complex three-stage legal process adopted by the commission led to bureaucratic delay and legalistic wrangling. Furthermore, the commission accepted low evaluations of real estate based at the time of taking, paid no interest on awards, and refused to restore tribal land.	5
During the early 1960s, the Omahas received a substantial claims settlement that totaled over $4.6 million dollars. Despite this important achievement, conflict arose between Indians living on and off the reservation over how to distribute this judgment fund. Eventually, a compromise was reached that divided claims awards into per capita payments, educational trust accounts for minors, and programs to facilitate tribal economic development.	6
Another example of Omaha legal tenacity was the effort to regain possession of more than 11,000 acres of tribal land situated on Blackbird Bend, east of the Missouri River. This lobe of meandering river land was originally part of the Omaha Reservation. Over the years the Missouri River changed its course and non-Indian farmers in Iowa took possession of this property.	7
In 1973 twelve carloads of Omaha political activists representing the American Indian Movement occupied Blackbird Bend to challenge the right of one hundred Euro-American farmers to use tribal land. This led to sixteen years of litigation that generated animosity, frustration, and resentment between the Omahas, federal officials, and non-Indians. In 1987 the Eighth Circuit Court finally awarded the tribe 2200 acres of disputed land in Iowa. This enabled the tribe to create a farming enterprise and establish CasinOmaha, a successful gaming operation that provided the Indians with a more secure future.	8
This book is based on extensive research in the Kansas City Federal Records Center, Harry S Truman Presidential Library, Federal District Court Records for the Northern District of Iowa, and interviews with Omaha tribal members. Nevertheless, the author missed an opportunity to consult the Hugh Butler Papers at the Nebraska Historical Society and the papers of tribal attorney James E. Curry at the Smithsonian Institution. This would have resulted in additional insights on the close relationship between termination and self-determination, Native American claims, and mid-twentieth century Indian political activism.	9
Imperfect Victories is a welcome contribution to Native American history. Scherer has written a compelling account of how the Omahas escaped Public law 280, redressed historical wrongs through the Indian Claims Commission, and participated in the Red Power movement to regain control over valuable tribal property. This book will be of special interest to scholars, policymakers, attorneys, and Indians interested in the origins of the self-determination movement.	10
Kenneth R. Philp University of Texas-Arlington

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.