RE-IMAGINING INDIAN COUNTRY
By: Connie Nelson
On September 26, 2017, the Native Governance Center and The Bush Foundation announced the names of the ninth cohort of Native Nation Re-builders. Twenty-five citizens, chosen from twelve of the 23 Native nations overlapping ND, SD and MN[i], form the newest cohort of emerging and existing Native leaders looking to build leadership skills and nation building knowledge. Re-builders will convene for four structured sessions during which they will develop action plans to share knowledge with peers and their respective Tribal governments. The article concluded: "With this Ninth Cohort, 165 Native leaders now call themselves Re-builders." Intriguing announcement, but a casual reader may not know its back-story. Let’s go back to…
The beginning - Design Lab, 2008
In April 2008, ten people from across the U.S. came together in St. Paul, Minnesota for a Design Lab focused on strengthening tribal nations. While only ten in number, designers included members of native nations from New Mexico and Idaho, persons affiliated with the Native Institute and with the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, a tribal law specialist, as well as several designers from other walks of life.
The Bush Foundation had commissioned this Design Lab. Bush already had an established grant making relationship with the twenty-three tribes. The Board and leaders of The Bush Foundation wanted to consider if there were ways their philanthropic funds could have a bigger impact on the lives of tribal people.
Every Design Lab held is chartered with a clear, measurable Design challenge. This was no exception. Even more challenging, designers were given five targets. They were asked to create a design so that by 2017-
• 70% of Tribal Chairs and Council members will consider themselves prepared for a catalytic tribal leadership role
· 50% of tribal chairs would have served 5 years or more
· The % of 9th graders achieving a degree after high school will increase by 100%
· The Years of Potential Life Lost will be decreased by at least 40%
· 70% of people say their community has a history of finding answers to tough community problems.
During the two days together, literally hundreds of ideas were generated in response. Then, as often happens in Design Labs, a break-through occurs. This is the moment when there is a “blinding flash of the obvious” and the energy of the room coalesces around an idea or two.
The “aha!” idea that occurred in the Tribal Nations Design Lab was actually not a new idea at all. It was a moment of recognizing some simple truths: “These are nations. Why are we even using language such as tribes? Why are we generating ideas for them? Further, there are 23 of them. Why are we generating ideas as if they are a singular kind of entity?”
A basic tenet then proposed for the Design – “The Bush Foundation acknowledges and respects the sovereignty of each nation.” – ended up becoming the Design’s core. The designers decided the way to achieve the outcomes was to start with nation building. And, research backed this up. According to the Harvard and the Native Nations Institute, nation building is the only thing proven to work. In research across indigenous people in Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the States, progress on outcomes was greatest wherever self-determination came first.
The Design – and Implications
Thus, the core of the Design became: For any interested Native Nation in the three states, Bush would commit to a long-term partnership to help that Nation improve their self-determination and governance. Instead of making grants for direct service requests, Bush resources would be used to build capacity. Bush Nation-building resources would be used to afford each Nation that desired it, the opportunity to articulate their unique national vision and mechanisms for self-rule.
Designer Joe Kalt, Harvard project, described the iterative process that would be needed. It would involve a process of connecting with each of the 23 Native Nations at a time, building a relationship, and securing an invitation to work together to address community challenges and dreams. Bush must be invited in – and start where the Nation is (e.g. in a crisis, in a question, on a path). He said he could “guarantee” that this conversation and journey would be different for each nation.
Each of the Nations who wished to partner would be expected to examine and re-develop its plan of self-determination. The self-rule plans would be defined and owned by Indians, and guided by their values.
In support, designers suggested Bush make a long-term commitment to three kinds of Nation Building resources -
1. Nation Building Endowed Trust - a funding collaborative by and for Native people. Bush need not do this alone – or even do it themselves. A trust could be established and endowed by the Bush Foundation as a separate entity. It was expected that other Foundations would be asked to add to it, as well as Native Nations with more capacity than their sister Nations. Monies could fund self-determination efforts (e.g. community meetings, Native Nation leadership development, and Tribal plans for changing their institutions). Applications must show/justify the link to Nation building.
2. Bush Nation Builder Fellows and Scholars. To assure a ready supply of leaders necessary to lead this kind of change, leadership development would be needed. Designers envisioned cohort groups of Midwestern Native and non-Native Fellows across all walks of life (i.e. emerging leaders interested in Nation Sovereignty). Out-of-community forums for these leaders (i.e. occurring in a separate place), networks, and other supports would be created. The intended result would be increased confidence in self-determination skills, and increased community comfort with the conversations themselves. These fellows would ultimately act as resources for Nation Building, or as Nation leaders themselves.
3. Partner Education. Funds/ resources would also be needed to help strengthen the partnerships with non-Indian “governments” or “governance boards.” But, first, Indian sovereignty cultural competency would need to deepen inside Bush – and be transferred across time and turnover of individuals. This would involve getting staff and Board members out into the field more.
Designers realized that acting consistent with this singular idea focused on sovereignty would involve fundamental, ongoing changes. Leadership would be required —both from the Nations and from Bush.
For more information about the changes envisioned for both Bush and Indian Country - and what has happened the last seven years, please contact Re:DESIGN Co-Director Connie Nelson at Connie@psg.us.