Amazon rainforest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amazon rainforest
Forest
Amazon rainforest, near Manaus, Brazil.
Countries	Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname, France (French Guiana)
Part of	South America
River	Amazon River
Area	5,500,000 km2 (2,123,562 sq mi)
Map of the Amazon rainforest ecoregions as delineated by the WWF. The yellow line approximately encloses the Amazon drainage basin. National boundaries are shown in black. (Satellite image from NASA)

The Amazon rainforest (Portuguese: Floresta Amazônica or Amazônia; Spanish: Selva Amazónica, Amazonía or usually Amazonia; French: Forêt amazonienne; Dutch: Amazoneregenwoud), also known in English as Amazonia or the Amazon Jungle, is a moist broadleaf forest in the Amazon biome that covers most of the Amazon basin of South America. This basin encompasses 7,000,000 km² (2,700,000 sq mi), of which 5,500,000 km² (2,100,000 sq mi) are covered by the rainforest. This region includes territory belonging to nine nations. The majority of the forest is contained within Brazil, with 60% of the rainforest, followed by Peru with 13%, Colombia with 10%, and with minor amounts in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana. States or departments in four nations contain "Amazonas" in their names. The Amazon represents over half of the planet's remaining rainforests, and comprises the largest and most biodiverse tract of tropical rainforest in the world, with an estimated 390 billion individual trees divided into 16,000 species.

Etymology

The name Amazon is said to arise from a war Francisco de Orellana fought with the Tapuyas and other tribes. The women of the tribe fought alongside the men, as was their custom.^[3] Orellana derived the name Amazonas from the Amazons of Greek mythology, described by Herodotus and Diodorus.^[3]

History

Natural

Aerial view of the Amazon rainforest, near Manaus

The rainforest likely formed during the Eocene era. It appeared following a global reduction of tropical temperatures when the Atlantic Ocean had widened sufficiently to provide a warm, moist climate to the Amazon basin. The rainforest has been in existence for at least 55 million years, and most of the region remained free of savanna-type biomes at least until the current ice age, when the climate was drier and savanna more widespread.^[4][5]

Following the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, the extinction of the dinosaurs and the wetter climate may have allowed the tropical rainforest to spread out across the continent. From 66–34 Mya, the rainforest extended as far south as 45°. Climate fluctuations during the last 34 million years have allowed savanna regions to expand into the tropics. During the Oligocene, for example, the rainforest spanned a relatively narrow band. It expanded again during the Middle Miocene, then retracted to a mostly inland formation at the last glacial maximum.^[6] However, the rainforest still managed to thrive during these glacial periods, allowing for the survival and evolution of a broad diversity of species.^[7]
 

Aerial view of the Amazon rainforest.

During the mid-Eocene, it is believed that the drainage basin of the Amazon was split along the middle of the continent by the Purus Arch. Water on the eastern side flowed toward the Atlantic, while to the west water flowed toward the Pacific across the Amazonas Basin. As the Andes Mountains rose, however, a large basin was created that enclosed a lake; now known as the Solimões Basin. Within the last 5–10 million years, this accumulating water broke through the Purus Arch, joining the easterly flow toward the Atlantic.^[8][9]

There is evidence that there have been significant changes in Amazon rainforest vegetation over the last 21,000 years through the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and subsequent deglaciation. Analyses of sediment deposits from Amazon basin paleolakes and from the Amazon Fan indicate that rainfall in the basin during the LGM was lower than for the present, and this was almost certainly associated with reduced moist tropical vegetation cover in the basin.^[10] There is debate, however, over how extensive this reduction was. Some scientists argue that the rainforest was reduced to small, isolated refugia separated by open forest and grassland;^[11] other scientists argue that the rainforest remained largely intact but extended less far to the north, south, and east than is seen today.^[12] This debate has proved difficult to resolve because the practical limitations of working in the rainforest mean that data sampling is biased away from the center of the Amazon basin, and both explanations are reasonably well supported by the available data.

Sahara Desert dust windblown to the Amazon

More than 56% of the dust fertilizing the Amazon rainforest comes from the Bodélé depression in Northern Chad in the Sahara desert. The dust contains phosphorus, important for plant growth. The yearly Sahara dust replaces the equivalent amount of phosphorus washed away yearly in Amazon soil from rains and floods.^[13] Up to 50 million tonnes of Sahara dust per year are blown across the Atlantic Ocean.

NASA's CALIPSO satellite has measured the amount of dust transported by wind from the Sahara to the Amazon: an average 182 million tons of dust are windblown out of the Sahara each year, at 15 degrees west longitude, across 1,600 miles (2,600 km) over the Atlantic Ocean (some dust falls into the Atlantic), then at 35 degrees West longitude at the eastern coast of South America, 27.7 million tons (15%) of dust fall over the Amazon basin, 132 million tons of dust remain in the air, 43 million tons of dust are windblown and falls on the Caribbean Sea, past 75 degrees west longitude.^[16]
CALIPSO uses a laser range finder to scan the Earth's atmosphere for the vertical distribution of dust and other aerosols. CALIPSO regularly tracks the Sahara-Amazon dust plume. CALIPSO has measured variations in the dust amounts transported— an 86 percent drop between the highest amount of dust transported in 2007 and the lowest in 2011.

A possibility causing the variation is the Sahel, a strip of semi-arid land on the southern border of the Sahara. When rain amounts in the Sahel are higher, the volume of dust is lower. The higher rainfall could make more vegetation grow in the Sahel, leaving less sand exposed to winds to blow away.^[17]

Human activity

Members of an uncontacted tribe encountered in the Brazilian state of Acre in 2009.

Based on archaeological evidence from an excavation at Caverna da Pedra Pintada, human inhabitants first settled in the Amazon region at least 11,200 years ago.^[18] Subsequent development led to late-prehistoric settlements along the periphery of the forest by AD 1250, which induced alterations in the forest cover.^[19]
 

Geoglyphs on deforested land in the Amazon rainforest, Acre.

For a long time, it was thought that the Amazon rainforest was only ever sparsely populated, as it was impossible to sustain a large population through agriculture given the poor soil. Archeologist Betty Meggers was a prominent proponent of this idea, as described in her book Amazonia: Man and Culture in a Counterfeit Paradise. She claimed that a population density of 0.2 inhabitants per square kilometre (0.52/sq mi) is the maximum that can be sustained in the rainforest through hunting, with agriculture needed to host a larger population.^[20] However, recent anthropological findings have suggested that the region was actually densely populated. Some 5 million people may have lived in the Amazon region in AD 1500, divided between dense coastal settlements, such as that at Marajó, and inland dwellers.^[21] By 1900 the population had fallen to 1 million and by the early 1980s it was less than 200,000.^[21]

The first European to travel the length of the Amazon River was Francisco de Orellana in 1542.^[22] The BBC's Unnatural Histories presents evidence that Orellana, rather than exaggerating his claims as previously thought, was correct in his observations that a complex civilization was flourishing along the Amazon in the 1540s. It is believed that the civilization was later devastated by the spread of diseases from Europe, such as smallpox.^[23]

Since the 1970s, numerous geoglyphs have been discovered on deforested land dating between AD 1–1250, furthering claims about Pre-Columbian civilizations.^[24][25] Ondemar Dias is accredited with first discovering the geoglyphs in 1977 and Alceu Ranzi with furthering their discovery after flying over Acre.^[23][26] The BBC's Unnatural Histories presented evidence that the Amazon rainforest, rather than being a pristine wilderness, has been shaped by man for at least 11,000 years through practices such as forest gardening and terra preta.^[23] Terra preta is found over large areas in the Amazon forest; and is now widely accepted as a product of indigenous soil management. The development of this fertile soil allowed agriculture and silviculture in the previously hostile environment; meaning that large portions of the Amazon rainforest are probably the result of centuries of human management, rather than naturally occurring as has previously been supposed.^[27] In the region of the Xingu tribe, remains of some of these large settlements in the middle of the Amazon forest were found in 2003 by Michael Heckenberger and colleagues of the University of Florida. Among those were evidence of roads, bridges and large plazas.^[28]

Biodiversity

Deforestation in the Amazon rainforest threatens many species of tree frogs, which are very sensitive to environmental changes (pictured: giant leaf frog)

 

Scarlet macaw, which is indigenous to the American tropics.

Wet tropical forests are the most species-rich biome, and tropical forests in the Americas are consistently more species rich than the wet forests in Africa and Asia.^[29] As the largest tract of tropical rainforest in the Americas, the Amazonian rainforests have unparalleled biodiversity. One in ten known species in the world lives in the Amazon rainforest.^[30] This constitutes the largest collection of living plants and animal species in the world.

The region is home to about 2.5 million insect species,^[31] tens of thousands of plants, and some 2,000 birds and mammals. To date, at least 40,000 plant species, 2,200 fishes,^[32] 1,294 birds, 427 mammals, 428 amphibians, and 378 reptiles have been scientifically classified in the region.^[33] One in five of all bird species are found in the Amazon rainforest, and one in five of the fish species live in Amazonian rivers and streams. Scientists have described between 96,660 and 128,843 invertebrate species in Brazil alone.^[34]

The biodiversity of plant species is the highest on Earth with one 2001 study finding a quarter square kilometer (62 acres) of Ecuadorian rainforest supports more than 1,100 tree species.^[35] A study in 1999 found one square kilometer (247 acres) of Amazon rainforest can contain about 90,790 tonnes of living plants. The average plant biomass is estimated at 356 ± 47 tonnes per hectare.^[36] To date, an estimated 438,000 species of plants of economic and social interest have been registered in the region with many more remaining to be discovered or catalogued.^[37] The total number of tree species in the region is estimated at 16,000.^[2]
 

A giant, bundled liana in western Brazil

The green leaf area of plants and trees in the rainforest varies by about 25% as a result of seasonal changes. Leaves expand during the dry season when sunlight is at a maximum, then undergo abscission in the cloudy wet season. These changes provide a balance of carbon between photosynthesis and respiration.^[38]

The rainforest contains several species that can pose a hazard. Among the largest predatory creatures are the black caiman, jaguar, cougar, and anaconda. In the river, electric eels can produce an electric shock that can stun or kill, while piranha are known to bite and injure humans.^[39] Various species of poison dart frogs secrete lipophilic alkaloid toxins through their flesh. There are also numerous parasites and disease vectors. Vampire bats dwell in the rainforest and can spread the rabies virus.^[40] Malaria, yellow fever and Dengue fever can also be contracted in the Amazon region.

• 

  Hoatzin
  
• 

  Mygalomorphae
  
• 

  Howler monkey
  
• 

  Heliconia
  
• 

  Brown-throated sloth
  
• 

  Emperor tamarin
  
• 

  Blue poison dart frog
  
• 

  South American jaguar
  
• 

  Bald uakari
  
• 

  Bullet ants have an extremely painful sting
  
• 

  Parrots at clay lick in Yasuni National Park, Ecuador
  

Deforestation

Deforestation in the Maranhão state of Brazil, 2016

Deforestation is the conversion of forested areas to non-forested areas. The main sources of deforestation in the Amazon are human settlement and development of the land.^[41] Prior to the early 1960s, access to the forest's interior was highly restricted, and the forest remained basically intact.^[42] Farms established during the 1960s were based on crop cultivation and the slash and burn method. However, the colonists were unable to manage their fields and the crops because of the loss of soil fertility and weed invasion.^[43] The soils in the Amazon are productive for just a short period of time, so farmers are constantly moving to new areas and clearing more land.^[43] These farming practices led to deforestation and caused extensive environmental damage.^[44] Deforestation is considerable, and areas cleared of forest are visible to the naked eye from outer space.

In the 1970s construction began on the Trans-Amazonian highway. This highway represented a major threat to the Amazon rainforest.^[45] Fortunately for the rainforest, the highway has not been completed, hereby reducing the environmental damage.

Between 1991 and 2000, the total area of forest lost in the Amazon rose from 415,000 to 587,000 square kilometres (160,000 to 227,000 sq mi), with most of the lost forest becoming pasture for cattle.^[46] Seventy percent of formerly forested land in the Amazon, and 91% of land deforested since 1970, is used for livestock pasture.^[47][48] Currently, Brazil is the second-largest global producer of soybeans after the United States. New research however, conducted by Leydimere Oliveira et al., has shown that the more rainforest is logged in the Amazon, the less precipitation reaches the area and so the lower the yield per hectare becomes. So despite the popular perception, there has been no economical advantage for Brazil from logging rainforest zones and converting these to pastoral fields.^[49]

The needs of soy farmers have been used to justify many of the controversial transportation projects that are currently developing in the Amazon. The first two highways successfully opened up the rainforest and led to increased settlement and deforestation. The mean annual deforestation rate from 2000 to 2005 (22,392 km² or 8,646 sq mi per year) was 18% higher than in the previous five years (19,018 km² or 7,343 sq mi per year).^[50] Although deforestation has declined significantly in the Brazilian Amazon between 2004 and 2014, there has been an increase to the present day.^[51]

• 

  NASA satellite observation of deforestation in the Mato Grosso state of Brazil. The transformation from forest to farm is evident by the paler square shaped areas under development.
  
• 

  Fires and deforestation in the state of Rondônia.
  
• 

  One consequence of forest clearing in the Amazon: thick smoke that hangs over the forest.
  

Conservation and climate change

Amazon rainforest

Environmentalists are concerned about loss of biodiversity that will result from destruction of the forest, and also about the release of the carbon contained within the vegetation, which could accelerate global warming. Amazonian evergreen forests account for about 10% of the world's terrestrial primary productivity and 10% of the carbon stores in ecosystems^[52]—of the order of 1.1 × 10¹¹ metric tonnes of carbon.^[53] Amazonian forests are estimated to have accumulated 0.62 ± 0.37 tons of carbon per hectare per year between 1975 and 1996.^[53]

One computer model of future climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions shows that the Amazon rainforest could become unsustainable under conditions of severely reduced rainfall and increased temperatures, leading to an almost complete loss of rainforest cover in the basin by 2100.^[54][55] However, simulations of Amazon basin climate change across many different models are not consistent in their estimation of any rainfall response, ranging from weak increases to strong decreases.^[56] The result indicates that the rainforest could be threatened though the 21st century by climate change in addition to deforestation.

In 1989, environmentalist C.M. Peters and two colleagues stated there is economic as well as biological incentive to protecting the rainforest. One hectare in the Peruvian Amazon has been calculated to have a value of $6820 if intact forest is sustainably harvested for fruits, latex, and timber; $1000 if clear-cut for commercial timber (not sustainably harvested); or $148 if used as cattle pasture.^[57]

As indigenous territories continue to be destroyed by deforestation and ecocide, such as in the Peruvian Amazon^[58] indigenous peoples' rainforest communities continue to disappear, while others, like the Urarina continue to struggle to fight for their cultural survival and the fate of their forested territories. Meanwhile, the relationship between non-human primates in the subsistence and symbolism of indigenous lowland South American peoples has gained increased attention, as have ethno-biology and community-based conservation efforts.

From 2002 to 2006, the conserved land in the Amazon rainforest has almost tripled and deforestation rates have dropped up to 60%. About 1,000,000 square kilometres (250,000,000 acres) have been put onto some sort of conservation, which adds up to a current amount of 1,730,000 square kilometres (430,000,000 acres).^[59]

• 

  Anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases broken down by sector for the year 2000.
  
• 

  Aerosols over the Amazon each September for four burning seasons (2005 through 2008). The aerosol scale (yellow to dark reddish-brown) indicates the relative amount of particles that absorb sunlight.
  
• 

  Aerial roots of red mangrove on an Amazonian river.
  

A 2009 study found that a 4 °C rise in global temperatures by 2100 would kill 85% of the Amazon rainforest while a temperature rise of 3 °C would kill some 75% of the Amazon.^[60]

Remote sensing

This image reveals how the forest and the atmosphere interact to create a uniform layer of "popcorn-shaped" cumulus clouds.

The use of remotely sensed data is dramatically improving conservationists' knowledge of the Amazon basin. Given the objectivity and lowered costs of satellite-based land cover analysis, it appears likely that remote sensing technology will be an integral part of assessing the extent and damage of deforestation in the basin.^[61] Furthermore, remote sensing is the best and perhaps only possible way to study the Amazon on a large scale.^[62]

The use of remote sensing for the conservation of the Amazon is also being used by the indigenous tribes of the basin to protect their tribal lands from commercial interests. Using handheld GPS devices and programs like Google Earth, members of the Trio Tribe, who live in the rainforests of southern Suriname, map out their ancestral lands to help strengthen their territorial claims.^[63] Currently, most tribes in the Amazon do not have clearly defined boundaries, making it easier for commercial ventures to target their territories.

To accurately map the Amazon's biomass and subsequent carbon related emissions, the classification of tree growth stages within different parts of the forest is crucial. In 2006 Tatiana Kuplich organized the trees of the Amazon into four categories: (1) mature forest, (2) regenerating forest [less than three years], (3) regenerating forest [between three and five years of regrowth], and (4) regenerating forest [eleven to eighteen years of continued development].^[64] The researcher used a combination of Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and Thematic Mapper (TM) to accurately place the different portions of the Amazon into one of the four classifications.

Impact of early 21st-century Amazon droughts

In 2005, parts of the Amazon basin experienced the worst drought in one hundred years,^[65] and there were indications that 2006 could have been a second successive year of drought.^[66] A July 23, 2006 article in the UK newspaper The Independent reported Woods Hole Research Center results showing that the forest in its present form could survive only three years of drought.^[67][68] Scientists at the Brazilian National Institute of Amazonian Research argue in the article that this drought response, coupled with the effects of deforestation on regional climate, are pushing the rainforest towards a "tipping point" where it would irreversibly start to die. It concludes that the forest is on the brink of being turned into savanna or desert, with catastrophic consequences for the world's climate.

According to the World Wide Fund for Nature, the combination of climate change and deforestation increases the drying effect of dead trees that fuels forest fires.^[69]

In 2010 the Amazon rainforest experienced another severe drought, in some ways more extreme than the 2005 drought. The affected region was approximate 1,160,000 square miles (3,000,000 km²) of rainforest, compared to 734,000 square miles (1,900,000 km²) in 2005. The 2010 drought had three epicenters where vegetation died off, whereas in 2005 the drought was focused on the southwestern part. The findings were published in the journal Science. In a typical year the Amazon absorbs 1.5 gigatons of carbon dioxide; during 2005 instead 5 gigatons were released and in 2010 8 gigatons were released.^[70][71] Additional severe droughts occurred in 2010, 2015, and 2016.

Tiny fibers open new windows into the brain

March 2, 2017
Original link:  http://www.kurzweilai.net/tiny-fibers-open-new-windows-into-the-brain

A multifunctional flexible fiber that enables viral delivery, optical stimulation, and recording with one-step surgery. (credit: Seongjun Park et al./Nature Neuroscience)

Imagine a single flexible polymer fiber 200 micrometers across — about the width of a human hair — that can deliver a combination of optical, electrical, and chemical signals between different brain regions, with the softness and flexibility of brain tissue — allowing neuroscientists to leave implants in place and have them retain their functions over much longer periods than is currently possible with typical stiff, metallic fibers.

That’s what a team of MIT scientists has reported in the journal Nature Neuroscience. (Previous research efforts in neuroscience have generally relied on separate devices: needles to inject viral vectors for optogenetics, optical fibers for light delivery, and arrays of electrodes for recording, adding complication and the need for tricky alignments among the different devices.)

Multifunctional

For example, in tests with lab mice, the researchers were able to inject viral vectors that carried genes called opsins (which sensitize neurons to light) through one of two fluid channels in the fiber. They waited for the opsins to take effect, then sent a pulse of light through the optical waveguide in the center, and recorded the resulting neuronal activity, using six electrodes to pinpoint specific reactions. All of this was done through a single flexible fiber.

“It can deliver the virus [containing the opsins] straight to the cell, and then stimulate the response and record the activity — and [the fiber] is sufficiently small and biocompatible so it can be kept in for a long time,” says Polina Anikeeva, a professor in the MIT Department of Materials Science and Engineering.

Since each fiber is so small, “potentially, we could use many of them to observe different regions of activity,” she says. In their initial tests, the researchers placed probes in two different brain regions at once, varying which regions they used from one experiment to the next, and measuring how long it took for responses to travel between them.

The key ingredient that made this multifunctional fiber possible was the development of conductive “wires” that maintained the needed flexibility while also carrying electrical signals well. The team engineered a composite of conductive polyethylene doped with graphite flakes. The polyethylene was initially formed into layers, sprinkled with graphite flakes, then compressed; then another pair of layers was added and compressed, and then another, and so on.

The team aims to reduce the width of the fibers further, to make their properties even closer to those of the neural tissue and use material that is even softer to match the adjacent tissue.

The research team included members of MIT’s Research Laboratory of Electronics, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Department of Chemical Engineering, and Department of Mechanical Engineering, as well as researchers at Tohuku University in Japan and Virginia Polytechnic Institute. It was supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Science Foundation, the MIT Center for Materials Science and Engineering, the Center for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering, and the McGovern Institute for Brain Research.

---

Abstract of One-step optogenetics with multifunctional flexible polymer fibers

Optogenetic interrogation of neural pathways relies on delivery of light-sensitive opsins into tissue and subsequent optical illumination and electrical recording from the regions of interest. Despite the recent development of multifunctional neural probes, integration of these modalities in a single biocompatible platform remains a challenge. We developed a device composed of an optical waveguide, six electrodes and two microfluidic channels produced via fiber drawing. Our probes facilitated injections of viral vectors carrying opsin genes while providing collocated neural recording and optical stimulation. The miniature (<200 achieve="" allowed="" amygdala="" and="" basolateral="" behavioral="" brain="" chronic="" circuits="" composites="" cortex="" during="" enabled="" experiments.="" fabricated="" fidelity.="" flexible="" footprint="" for="" from="" g="" high="" hippocampus="" implantations="" interrogation="" into="" investigation="" m="" medial="" minimized="" modest="" mouse="" multimodal="" multiple="" of="" opto-electrophysiological="" p="" polymer="" polymers="" prefrontal="" probes="" projections="" response="" solely="" the="" these="" tissue="" to="" ventral="" weight="" which="" with="">

References:

• Seongjun Park, Yuanyuan Guo, Xiaoting Jia, Han Kyoung Choe, Benjamin Grena, Jeewoo Kang, Jiyeon Park, Chi Lu, Andres Canales, Ritchie Chen, Yeong Shin Yim, Gloria B Choi, Yoel Fink, Polina Anikeeva. One-step optogenetics with multifunctional flexible polymer fibers. Nature Neuroscience, 2017; DOI: 10.1038/nn.4510

Native American self-determination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Native American self-determination refers to the social movements, legislation, and beliefs by which the Native American tribes in the United States exercise self-governance and decision making on issues that affect their own people.

Conceptual origin

Flag of the Iroquois Confederacy

Self-determination is defined as the movement by which the Native Americans sought to achieve restoration of tribal community, self-government, cultural renewal, reservation development, educational control, and equal or controlling input into federal government decisions concerning policies and programs. The beginnings of the federal policy favoring self-determination dates back to the 1930s. In 1933, John Collier, a social worker and reformer who had long worked in American Indian affairs, was appointed commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. He was likely the most knowledgeable person about American Indians appointed to this position up to that period. He respected tribal cultures and values.

The U.S. Congress passed Collier's legislation, the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, although with numerous changes. It was to enable tribes to reorganize their governments and strengthen their communities. It ended the allotment of Indian lands to individual households, which had led to loss of control over their territories. The law was intended to decrease the paternalistic power of the BIA, which extended to their running numerous Indian boarding schools, where American Indian children were forced to give up native languages and cultural practices.^[2] Four years before the passage of the Indian Reorganization Act, the government acknowledged that the paternalism was unfair to the Indian tribes and their people. The IRA was called the Indian "New Deal" by the Roosevelt administration. The IRA enabled the restoration of tribal governments, but Congress made many changes in response to lobbyists, and the bill fell short of the policy of "Indian self-determination without termination."^[3]

During the 1950s, government policy changed toward American Indians, and politicians recommended termination of many of the tribes' special relationships with the government under federal recognition of their status, in favor of assimilation. Over 100 tribes were terminated; those that continued suffered from increased governmental paternalism.^[3] During the 1960s and later, with increased activism for civil rights and American Indian rights, the movement for self-determination gained strength.^[3]

Post-1960

Self-determination was not official federal government policy until 1970, when President Richard M. Nixon addressed the issue in his July 8 congressional message of "Recommendations for Indian Policy." He discussed his goal of policy changes that supported Indian self-determination.

It is long past time that the Indian policies of the Federal government began to recognize and build upon the capacities and insights of the Indian people. Both as a matter of Justice and as a matter of enlightened social policy, we must begin to act on the basis of what the Indians themselves have long been telling us. The time has come to break decisively with the past and to create the conditions for a new era in which the Indian future is determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions.

In 1968, Congress had passed the Indian Civil Rights Act, after recognizing the policies of Indian termination as a failure during the 1960s. American Indians had persisted in keeping their cultures and religions alive, and the government recognized that the goal of assimilation was the wrong one. The bill was to ensure provision of the Bill of Rights to the tribal peoples. In the following years, Congress passed additional legislation to carry out Nixon's programs to develop a stronger trust relationship between the federal government and the tribes, and to allow the tribes to manage their own affairs.

Another example is the Indian Financing Act of 1974 and the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975.^[4] The latter act enabled the government to make direct contracts with the Indian tribes just as it does with the states, for implementation of programs and distribution of funds. Rather than the BIA administering programs directly, the government would contract with tribes to manage health care, for instance, or educational benefits.^[3]

The Indian Child Welfare Act (1978) "... recognized tribal courts as the primary and ultimate forum for welfare and custody cases concerning native children. "By promising to look after the tribes' children, the ICWA contributed to the economic and cultural welfare of each tribe's future.^[5]

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978) "...recognized the integrity of native cultures." It ended the persecution of American Indians for such practices as the use of peyote in religion.^[5]

Since 1980, administrations have issued Presidential Memoranda on Indian affairs to indicate direction for increased tribal sovereignty. A 1994 Presidential Memorandum issued by Bill Clinton changed the way the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development supported housing programs. The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 consolidated grant programs for housing funding into a single block grant specifically available to recognized governments of American Indians and Alaska Natives.

Leaders

A renewal of Indian activism since the 1960s saw the rise of a new generation of leaders. Public protests created publicity for their cause, such as the occupation of Alcatraz and Mount Rushmore, the Wounded Knee Incident, and other examples of American Indians uniting to change their relationship with the United States government. Strong Indian leaders traveled across America to try to add unification to the Indian cause. The leaders arose in different fields, starting independent newspapers, promoting educational independence, working to reclaim lands, and to enforce treaty rights. Another campaign occurred in the Pacific Northwest as Billy Frank, Jr. and Hank Adams fought for native treaty fishing rights. The result was a Native American force which fought for change throughout a wide variety of interconnected social spheres.

Education

Allan Yazzie

For decades since the late 19th century, Native Americans were forced to send their children to boarding schools where they were made to speak and write in English only, and to learn the majority culture and Christian religion. Native Americans wanted to teach their children their own values and cultures. In the 1960s, Allan Yazzie (Navajo) proposed creation of a Navajo school to be built on the tribe's land in Arizona and operated by the tribe. The project was called the Rough Rock Demonstration School, and it was to administered solely by the Navajo Indians (without BIA oversight.) Although many politicians thought that the school would fail immediately, it prevailed. It became a strong sign of Indian self-determination and success.^[6] In 1968, the Navajo established the first tribal college, to be followed by other tribes developing similar tribal colleges on their own reservations.

Land reclamation and anti-termination

Paul Bernal

Paul Bernal (also known as Sherry Beni) fought for the Taos Pueblo tribe of New Mexico, who wanted to reclaim their sacred religious site, Blue Lake. It had been taken by the Forest Service at the start of the twentieth century for inclusion in a national forest. Throughout the 1960s, Bernal and the Pueblo had little success in regaining the lake. The administration of Richard Nixon supported self-determination for American Indians. After Senate hearings (where Bernal was harassed by senators who thought that the Indians wanted the land for other than religious purposes), Nixon signed a bill to return the lake to the Taos Pueblo.^[7]

Ada Deer

Ada Deer

Ada Deer (b. 1935) is a leader of the Menominee tribe, which has a reservation in Wisconsin. In the 1960s, Deer helped mobilize her tribe to oppose the government's proposed termination of its relationship with the federal government. By 1972, Deer had gained support for her tribe's movement, and many governors, senators, and congressman gave her and the Menominee tribe their full-fledged approval. Deer fought against the Interior Committee chairman (Wayne Aspinall), who supported the tribe's termination, and their loss of 250,000 acres (1,000 km²) of communal land under termination policies. Ada Deer continued to lobby for the Menominee Restoration Act. After Aspinall failed to win an election, the tribe prevailed and the act was signed by President Nixon. Ada Deer (along with such people as Lucy Covington) is one of the early examples of self-determination in tribal members; her efforts helped restore all the terminated lands back to the Menominee tribe.^[8]

D'Arcy McNickle

D'Arcy McNickle (Cree and Salish-Kootenai) was a member of the Flathead reservation. He served as the chair of a committee of Indian leaders at the 1961 American Indian Chicago Conference, and crafted an Indian policy called "Declaration of Indian purpose." The policy outlined many solutions to the problems of termination. It was a sign of change in the 1960s and 1970s when the termination era ended. The "Declaration of Indian purpose" was given to President John F. Kennedy by the National Congress of American Indians. The tribal governments started to bypass the BIA and focus on self-determination plans.

Legal activism

John Echohawk

John Echohawk (Pawnee) is a founder and leader of the Native American Rights Fund (NARF). He is a lawyer who has worked to protect Indian land and sovereignty. In 1970 Echohawk was the first Native American to graduate from the University of New Mexico's school of law. After law school, Echohawk worked for some time with California Indian Legal Services. Echohawk joined together with other lawyers and tribal members to form the NARF, which was similar to the NAACP (both were formed to organize civil rights activism). Under Echohawk, NARF's focused on preserving tribes, protecting tribal resources, protecting human rights, ensuring government responsibility, expanding Indian law, and educating people about Indian issues. Through NARF, Echohawk has gained government recognition of tribal sovereignty and participated in drafting the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in 1990.

Rosalind McClanahan

Rosalind McClanahan (Navajo) opposed Arizona's imposing a state income tax on members of her tribe who lived and worked within the Navajo Reservation, which she considered an issue of tribal sovereignty. McClanahan lived and worked in the reservation, and was taxed. She enlisted the help of DNA (a group of Native American rights attorneys), and appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court in 1973 after the state court had ruled in favor of the state's ability to require that tax. The resulting U.S. Supreme Court ruling was in favor of McClanahan, and tribal rights of members to be excluded from state taxes within tribal sovereign land. She helped establish stronger self-rule for the Navajo as well as other Native American tribes.^[9]

Organizations

Several Native American organizations provided an immense amount of support that either helped set the precedent for the self-determination movement or further strengthen the policy. These organizations can be divided mainly into two levels: associations that were nationally operated and those groups that were organized for local action.

National

In 1944, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was founded "in response to termination and assimilation policies that the United States forced upon the tribal governments in contradiction of their treaty rights and status as sovereigns. NCAI stressed the need for unity and cooperation among tribal governments for the protection of their treaty and sovereign rights".^[10] "Recognizing the threat posed by termination, [NCAI] fought to maintain Indians' legal rights and cultural identity."^[11] Indian policy has been federalized since colonial times; however, "until the 1940s, in spite of such major national initiatives as allotment and the Indian Reorganization Act, Indians had never been able to organize on a national basis".^[12] Groups such as the Friends of the Indians in the late nineteenth century and the Association on American Indian Affairs (est. 1922) had nearly all-white membership. The NCAI was an Indian-only organization with membership based on tribes, not individuals. Although the "NCAI's fortunes would ebb and flow . . . the return of Indian veterans at the end of World War II" ^[13] gave the organization and the Indian people an unexpected boost. "Whether they settled in Indian country or in the cities, these veterans realized expectations and bred a much-needed impatience and assertiveness." According to Helen Peterson, later executive director of NCAI, "World War Two revived the Indians' capacity to act on their own behalf."^[14] With the NCAI, Native American people relied on their own people to organize and affect national policy. The NCAI was one of the first major steps in halting termination and giving life to the Self-Determination era.

The Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), a result of President Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty legislation and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, provided grants and other funds directly to tribal governments rather than only state and federal agencies. The War on Poverty Grants "empowered tribes by building tribal capacities, creating independence from the BIA, and knitting tribes together with other tribes and the country as a whole."^[15] As Philip S. Deloria explains, the OEO helped the Indian people become more independent and powerful: for the first time ". . . Indian tribal governments had money and were not beholden for it to the Bureau of Indian Affairs . . . Tribes could, to some degree, set their own priorities."^[15] Renewed self-determination by tribes "altered the nature of the [BIA] and the relationship between tribes and the federal government".^[15] The independence gained by tribes from dealing with the Office of Economic Opportunity helped change the dynamic of Indian affairs in relation to the federal government.

The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) is a national legal-advocacy and nonprofit organization founded by Indians in 1970 to assist Indians in their legal battles. It has become the primary national advocacy group for Native Americans. "It is funded largely by grants from private foundations and (despite its adversarial relationship) the Federal Government." ^[16] NARF's legal, policy, and public education work is concentrated in five key areas: preservation of tribes; protection of tribal natural resources; promotion of Native American human rights; accountability of governments to Native Americans; and development of Indian law and educating the public about Indian rights, laws, and issues. "NARF focuses on applying existing laws and treaties to guarantee that national and state governments live up to their legal obligations [and] . . . works with religious, civil rights, and other Native American organizations to shape the laws that will help assure the civil and religious rights of all Native Americans." ^[17] Since its inception, NARF has provided legal expertise at the national level. NARF has trained many young attorneys, both Indians and non-Indians, who intend to specialize in Native American legal issues.^[18] "NARF has successfully argued every Supreme Court case involving Native Americans since 1973."^[19] NARF has affected tens of thousands of Indian people in its work for more than 250 tribes in all fifty states to develop strong self-governance, sound economic development, prudent natural resources management and positive social development. It continues to handle civil rights cases for the Native American community in the United States.

Regional

Accomplishments and progress of Native American organizations on the national level inspired change on the local level. It did not take too long for local tribes to begin to establish their own organizations that would benefit them directly. One of the earliest of such organizations was the Determination of Rights and Unity for Menominee Shareholders (DRUMS) - a citizens' group founded in 1970. It focused on stopping the Legend Lake sales, establishing Menominee control over the Menominee Enterprises, Inc. (MEI), and, eventually, even reversing termination, which was the main purpose of self-determination. DRUMS made an immediate impact. Within months of establishment, the Menominee organized a series of well-planned and smoothly executed demonstrations. In an effort to interrupt the Legend Lake land development, DRUMS picketed Legend Lake's Menominee County sales office and promotional events in nearby cities, such as Milwaukee, Green Bay, and Appleton. In October 1971, DRUMS led an impressive 12-day, 220-mile (350 km) from Menominee County, to the state capitol in Madison. Like the other DRUMS protests, the march to Madison, was non-violent but sharp-edged nonetheless. Minnesota Governor Patrick Lucey met with DRUMS leaders and discussed prevalent issues in the Menominee community. Within a month of the march, Governor Lucey visited Menominee County, and consistently supported the Menominee movement. In addition, DRUMS managed to produce a first draft of the Menominee restoration bill by the end of 1971 and by early 1972 the tribe had already obtained an astounding level of support, including the support of Democratic Presidential nominee Henry Jackson. Though it took a prodigious amount of work, the Menominee Restoration Act moved through Congress with rare speed. In April 1975, MEI was dissolved and all Menominee lands were transferred back to the tribe, to be held in trust by the United States of America and governed by the sovereign Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin. Although DRUMS set its sights on improving the status of the local Menominee people, it was a big step toward the nationwide self-determination movement.^[20] The success of DRUMS let other Indians know that they too could make an impact, if only on a local level, and motivated other tribes to fight for their rights. On the national scope, DRUMS allowed Native American leaders to assume prominent positions. For instance, Ada Deer was catapulted to the top of the federal government; In 1993, Deer was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Interior by President Bill Clinton and served as head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs from 1993–1997.

Institutional capacity

The new policy of the Office of Economic Opportunity, which sought to directly involve the recipients of its aid, provided further impetus for self-determination in education. The success of the OEO Head Start preschool program was attributed primarily to the fact that Indians were "allowed to operate programs." For the first time in history, Deloria commented, "Indian parents have become excited about education for their children. . . . For the last 100 years, the Government has been doing things for us and telling us what is best for Indians . . . of course there has been no progress . . ."^[21] Progress in education was just one area in which Native Americans were gaining more independence. As tribes began to have more control over their own affairs and have more infrastructure entitled to them, they were able to be in much more command of their space, make more money, which led to power and progress.